The Graphite
New member
Indeed. And Carter & Clinton funded the "legal" killing of babies, and McCain will carry on their legacy.
Indeed, looks like we're at least roughly on the same page. :up:
Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
TheOnlyThing2Fear
New member
Just curious why NW ignored the video of McCain in his own words.
Researching the internet for all of John Roberts' and Sam Alito's lower court and Supreme Court decisions related to child killing was eye popping. Anyone, including the pro life industry cheerleaders at NRTL, who are waiting for just one more judge will be horrified in doing the same research, or reading the Gonzales V. Carhart ruling.
Researching the internet for all of John Roberts' and Sam Alito's lower court and Supreme Court decisions related to child killing was eye popping. Anyone, including the pro life industry cheerleaders at NRTL, who are waiting for just one more judge will be horrified in doing the same research, or reading the Gonzales V. Carhart ruling.
WandererInFog
New member
:crackup:
TheOnlyThing2Fear
New member
Quirt stated: "I hope they will be able to admit that McCain is evil, and not worth a vote."
Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still evil and voting for B.O. or J.M. is a lowering of the Christian standard of responsibility in knowing with clarity the person I am casting a vote for.
Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still evil and voting for B.O. or J.M. is a lowering of the Christian standard of responsibility in knowing with clarity the person I am casting a vote for.
The Graphite
New member
Why wouldn't they, since they ignored almost everything else in that post...
I'll admit to not having read every word of this debate to this point because it seems to me that most of it is obvious and irrelevant to the question that is really at hand during this election cycle but of the portion I have read the following comes closest to touching on the main point (the real one) of the whole discussion....
Are we actually to believe that in this fallen evil world we live in, the genuine "catch 22" is a myth?
It would seem that this very election cycle is a counter example to such a claim and it is now on "GG" to prove otherwise rather than simply making the claim.
Resting in Him,
Clete
It is my hope that who ever writes the next post points out that the above is an entirely unsubstantiated point and that things aren't true simply because we state them as fact with bold conviction.
Are we actually to believe that in this fallen evil world we live in, the genuine "catch 22" is a myth?
It would seem that this very election cycle is a counter example to such a claim and it is now on "GG" to prove otherwise rather than simply making the claim.
Resting in Him,
Clete
The Graphite
New member
You're confusing a situation in which we can't win (in this earthly context) with a situation in which we must give approval to evil in order to bring about good. And those two things are not synonymous.
Shoot your own son, and I'll let your wife and other 9 children live. If you don't, they all die. Either way, a terrible evil happens. But you already know that you do not do evil so that good may come. Even if that means your wife and 9 other children die. I can't pretend to know how traumatic such a horrifying dilemma would be, but nevertheless when given that dilemma, you should not fear men but only fear God, and stand in faith by refusing to murder your son.
Of course there are situations that appear to be no-win. Of course, we know how the story really ends and should keep our perspective on the eternal rather than the temporal, the temporary, the earthly.
But, what is motivating you, Clete? I ask this sincerely. If you don't vote for McCain, what are you so afraid of?
Shoot your own son, and I'll let your wife and other 9 children live. If you don't, they all die. Either way, a terrible evil happens. But you already know that you do not do evil so that good may come. Even if that means your wife and 9 other children die. I can't pretend to know how traumatic such a horrifying dilemma would be, but nevertheless when given that dilemma, you should not fear men but only fear God, and stand in faith by refusing to murder your son.
Of course there are situations that appear to be no-win. Of course, we know how the story really ends and should keep our perspective on the eternal rather than the temporal, the temporary, the earthly.
But, what is motivating you, Clete? I ask this sincerely. If you don't vote for McCain, what are you so afraid of?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Just for clarification, in this scenario, Clete and his family are being held prisioner?
Last edited:
The Graphite
New member
Yes. But keep in mind, that particular analogy wasn't intended to address the election. That analogy was intended to address the issue of Catch-22s and the idea that there are times when we must enable evil men to do more evil in order to prevent an even greater evil from happening.
We advocated that we are never truly put in a situation in which we must choose to give approval to the lesser of two evils. Clete seemed to argue that this may sound nice but that real life puts us in Catch 22 situations that don't really fit that platitude.
So, I endeavored to give an analogy in which a man is put in a truly horrendous dilemma. Nevertheless, we should never choose the lesser of two evils because, even if someone else threatens to do greater evil, we should not approve of evil, much less participate in it. Even if it means watching our whole family slaughtered.
Again, I don't pretend that such a decision would be easy, nor do I want to to give the impression I treat it flippantly.
I'm confusing nothing and if I here this "give approval to evil" line again I think I'll blow my own brains out to save me the torture of it.
What you are confusing is the casting of a secret ballot with a direct endorsement of the candidate. Those two things are not synonymous! (Which is a primary reason that they are SECRET ballots to begin with.) Indeed, that is the flawed premise upon which this entire debate revolves around. Thus every time someone talks about "approving evil that good may come of it" they beg the question. That is they assume the truth of their position in order to argue their position. That's irrational.
This is not the choice we are faced with and thus it is altogether irrelevant and nothing at all more than a simple distraction; an emotionally based one at that.
I hope that you don't think that this sort of argument is going to do anything other then help convince me that voting for McCain is the wisest course of action in this election cycle.
You mean like the one you just presented, right?
Oh, so since God wins in the end, it really doesn't matter whether we adopt a losing strategy now. I see! It's okay if Obama socializes health care and abortions sky-rocket and every one of them are paid for with your tax dollars because in your long-sightedness you were too short sighted to see that throwing your vote away helped the most evil man to ever run for the presidency to win the election.
Do you have anything other than emotionalism and irrationalities to argue your position with?
I'm motivated by a desire to defeat evil. I'm motivated by a desire to act in the wisest manner possible. I'm motivated by wanting to minimize the number of abortions as much as it is within my power to do so. If I am UNABLE to completely stop them then I sure as Hell don't want to cause them to increase!
You guys don't seem to care if they increase or not, as long as you can have the ability to step back and say "Hey! I didn't vote for the guy!". And what I'm saying is that you won't have the luxury of such an excuse if Obama wins because if he does, abortions will get vastly worse and it will be in large measure because of Alan Keys and others who split the conservative vote. Whereas if McCain, whom you guys seem to all universally agree isn't going to make anything on the abortion front either better or worse, wins then we can all, at the very least, breath a sigh of relief that not only have we not lost any ground with regards to abortion but we haven't added five or six additions fronts on which we have to fight against the socialists who are taking over this country, which would dilute our effectiveness and most likely lose us the war as far as this country is concerned.
Your idealism, which is based on a false premise, is going to get a lot of people killed and lose a great deal more people their liberty as American citizens and their rights as human beings.
Obama's new favorite quote of the day...
"The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete,
Why do you believe the number of abortions will be greater with Obama in office than with McCain? History and the stats prove that to be false.
cm :chicken:
Why do you believe the number of abortions will be greater with Obama in office than with McCain? History and the stats prove that to be false.
cm :chicken:
Because Obama wants to fundamentally change what America is. Obama is an outright Marxist/Socialist. His health care plan alone would devastate our fight against abortion. Abortion is considered a medical procedure and if we end up with socialized medicine in this country, even if the actual number of abortions were to somehow remain the same, they would all be funded by tax dollars.
Along with that, our fight against abortion would end up getting diluted because the religious right would have no choice but to fight on countless other fronts.
Resting in Him,
Clete
genuineoriginal
New member
This is the attitude that is losing the war.
The Democrat congressmen are dragging this country into socialism.
The Republican congressmen are willing to compromise in order to lose as little ground as possible.
Where is the conservative party that will fight for morality, small government and personal responsibility?
Where is the conservative party that will drag this country toward conservatism?
They are MIA because Christians are voting for Republicans instead of conservatives.
WandererInFog
New member
It doesn't exist because it has no constituency. When you start seeing people polled on their actual beliefs (as opposed to what they label themselves) both conservatives and Evangelical Christians represent a small and shrinking minority of the population.
Do you realize that if every Christian who actually holds to basic Evangelical beliefs voted for a given candidate that they would only get 5% of the vote?
We have shrunk to a tiny minority of the US population. Mind you, 5% can be enough to swing an election between the candidates of the two major parties, but it's not anywhere near enough to elect anyone on our own.
WandererInFog
New member
What history and stats would those be?
- Status