Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

[nicholsmom]

This bears repeating:

McCain and Obama both have very clear records. Of the two, who is considered the most liberal member of Congress? Of the two, who has radical left wing associates who've attempted to bomb the Capital building? Of the two, who has the wife who has spent her entire adult life being something other than proud of her country? Of the two, who voted against legislation making it illegal to kill a baby born alive after a botched abortion? Of the two, who has picked the third most liberal Senator in the Congress as his running mate? Of the two, who doesn't have the running mate who willfully and happily chose to carry a Down's Syndrome Baby to term rather than aborting it? Of the two, who flips and flops on the issue of your right to carry a fire arm? Of the two, who believes in the fairness doctrine? Of the two, who wants to sit down and talk with terrorists and tyrants without preconditions?

On and on one could go, showing issue after issue after issue where Barrack Husein Obama II is easily the most liberal, the most evil and the most unqualified man to ever run for the office of President in the history of the United States of America.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Perfect. :thumb:

 

[Delmar]

Indeed you have always been both respectful, consistent and constructive.

It seems as though I may have overlooked some of your posts. If so, it hasn't been intentional; I've sort of gotten dog piled on this one.

Have you directly addressed my arguments concerning third party candidates helping the worse of two evils win the election? If so, could you please point them out to me so that I can read them and respond?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I have consistently agreed with you that right wing Christians not voting for the Republican candidate does make it more likely for the Dem to get elected. You are correct on this point! As far as I can tell the sole disagreement between you and I is that you believe it would be far worse for the nation if Obama is elected and I am sticking with my belief that the wolf in sheep's clothing is more dangerous than the wolf out in the open.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

Original quote by Clete #222 "Alan Keyes is incapable of winning election. It isn't unlikely that he will win it is impossible for him to win. That is the very definition of an unviable candidate."

All political candidates are incapable of winning without the approval and financial funding of their political party. Since the D's and R's have monopolized the system, all other parties and their candidates get little, or no funding, get little, or no exposure, and are deliberately left out of debates. And when added to the discussion are promptly ignored, or given only partial time to speak. This is known as a fix.


Original quote by Clete #222 "Alan Keyes CANNOT win this election under any circumstances no matter how many votes he gets."

I actually will cast a vote for President in 2008 for a candidate that shares my belief in Christ, lives by the same morals He has taught me, and who understands the value and results of leading others in truth and a high ethical standard.

I actually went to hear Alan Keyes speak and based on the words I heard him speak, the passion he spoke with, and the honest, untwisted answers he offered to very direct questions, he gets my vote! Alan Keyes is a God fearing man, believing in serving Christ and humanity in order that humanity will honor God, humble themselves before God, and live in service to Christ and each other's neighbors.

I will no longer waste my vote on the lesser of two evils, believing that good can come of it.

 

[The Graphite]

I am so sorry about the 15-minute delay of our final round. It was completed 10 minutes earlier, but in preparing to post it, I had momentarily put it in MS Notepad, and when I copied it out of there, every line in the entire post had been chopped! It screwed up the post royally. I fixed it as fast as I humanly could. Please accept my apologies.

Although GW wrote the vast majority of this round, I was responsible for putting it into code because he had to go to work. I am solely responsible for the missed deadline, and don't want it to reflect on my partner, with whom it's been an honor to work on this debate.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Clete,

Assuming Obama would always be worse than McCain, how bad would McCain have to be before you wouldn't vote for him?

 

[The Graphite]

Clete, in the state in which you live, do they actually have voting booths that provide a "vote against Obama" button as an option? We don't have that here in Colorado.

There is no such thing as voting against someone in a presidential election. The buttons don't say:

Vote against:

* McCain - Republican
* Obama - Democrat
* Amondson - Prohibition
* Baldwin - Constitution​

No, it gives you selections to support, to give authority to. Your act of voting is an act of approval to hire someone for a job. Not to exclude someone from a job. Your voting for McCain doesn't exclude Obama from the job because the future is still open and unwritten and Obama may yet be chosen for the job, someday. So, your vote doesn't exclude him. It only approves McCain.

You are the hiring manager for the Oval Office. If you think you can mask your... let's say "concern"... with excuses such as "my vote isn't really for McCain; it's just against Obama," your lying to yourself. Because that's just not what a vote is. That's not honest. I pray you will consider this and be honest with yourself first and foremost and admit to yourself that you can't hide behind the notion that a vote in that booth is "against" anyone.

It is what it is. It is a vote to hire a man who you know will work to continue a holocaust greater than the Third Reich and Stalinist Russia combined. If you hire an admitted thief to run the store's cash register and he steals money, you are responsible. If you knowingly hire an unrepentant pedophile to manage a daycare center and a little boy is molested, you are responsible, even if some other applicant has previously molested twice as many boys as this one has.

You cannot escape your responsibility. You have two moral options -- refuse to support such men at all, or give your approval to a man who you are reasonably sure won't be hired, but at least you can plead for him faithfully. But you cannot give your vote to hire that pedophile, put him in that daycare, and absolve yourself of guilt. That guilt isn't something you can hide from.

You're the hiring manager. Who do you want to hire?

 

[Stripe]

I like your style, TOT2F

Alan Keyes wiped the floor with Obama in the debates I saw of theirs. It seems only right that the democrats and repulicans would not invite other parties to debates. That would probably cost them votes. And we can't have that :nono:

 

[chickenman]

I just got through reading the last two posts of the debate. Half-way through NW's post # 18, I threw up in my mouth. Since I had nowhere to spit it out, I had to swallow the vomit.

That was savory and tasty compared to the "taste" of the rest of their post. It was absolutely nauseating.

Shame on NW for trying to make wickedness look lovely.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Clete, in the state in which you live, do they actually have voting booths that provide a "vote against Obama" button as an option? We don't have that here in Colorado.

There is no such thing as voting against someone in a presidential election. The buttons don't say:

Vote against:

* McCain - Republican
* Obama - Democrat
* Amondson - Prohibition
* Baldwin - Constitution​

No, it gives you selections to support, to give authority to.

Perfectly stated. :first: :up: POTD

 

[nicholsmom]

I just got through reading the last two posts of the debate. Half-way through NW's post # 18, I threw up in my mouth. Since I had nowhere to spit it out, I had to swallow the vomit.

That was savory and tasty compared to the "taste" of the rest of their post. It was absolutely nauseating.

Shame on NW for trying to make wickedness look lovely.

This was most certainly the opinion of those in the 1st century church who scorned the eating of meat offered to idols. But Paul was very clear on the issue of doubtful things & told them essentially to do what you just did: swallow their vomit - quit making judgments/doctrine/law out of doubtful things. Voting is certainly a doubtful thing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

OK, now that the battle is officially over I will comment. This battle was a bit of a slaughter. In fact, I think it was the biggest slaughter since "Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54", where s9s27s54 gave up after a couple rounds. WanderinFog and Nicholsmom didn't really put up much of a fight did they?

Changing their "yes" answers in mid-stream to "no comment", reminded me of Roberto Duran shouting out out... "No Más, No Más..." when fighting Sugar Ray Leonard in 1980.

NW teams stated in their final round....

In our opening, we posited a clear definition, based on Scripture, of when choosing to vote for a candidate was definitively immoral, which we will restate again here: The only instance in which voting could be definitively considered an immoral act is if a vote is cast for someone who God himself would not command us to obey as a legitimate authority.

That is the most bizarre and asinine argument I have ever heard!

In case you didn't catch it, what they are saying is God wouldn't care if we voted for Charles Manson, as long as God Himself did not command us to obey him as a legitimate authority.

I wonder... how would Nicholsmom and WanderinFog make that determination? :think:

What candidate could possibly be "out of bounds" for them based on that logic?

This is the height of attempting to rationalize away what is right and what is wrong.

And this also highlights that politics can turn otherwise smart people into adopting silly points of view. I have found myself making similar arguments in the past and I always feel so weird about it until I repent I get myself more inline with God's will and not the will of men.

 

[WandererInFog]

That is the most bizarre and asinine argument I have ever heard!

In case you didn't catch it, what they are saying is God wouldn't care if we voted for Charles Manson, as long as God Himself did not command us to obey him as a legitimate authority.

I wonder... how would Nicholsmaom and WanderinFog make that determination? :think:

What candidate could possibly be "out of bounds" for them based on that logic?

This is the height of attempting to rationalize away what is right and what is wrong.

It is not rationalizing. It is attempting to exegete a principle from scripture as to whom we could morally delegate authority, and no alternative principle has yet to be offered that would not result, if carried to it's logical end, in having to maintain that God Himself was immoral in His own delegation authority.

When Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans where he made the clear statement that the government in power had it's authority because it was delegated to it by God Himself, it is most likely that man currently ruling as Emperor was Nero. As evil men go, Charles Manson pales in comparison. Do you hold then that God was immoral in delegating authority to Nero?

There are two separate issues being discussed here which keep getting crossed over. The first is whether or not it is lawful (which is to say moral) for a Christian to vote for McCain/Palin, the second is whether or not it is the wise or expedient action to take. In regards to the first instance I see no scriptural principle that can be produced whereby it can be ruled immoral. The second though I will acknowledge is much more open to debate.

Also as a general note for future Battle Royales. If this format is to be used again, it would improve the quality if you make sure in advance that those on each side agree completely not only as to what they are advocating, but why they are advocating it.

 

[chickenman]

This was most certainly the opinion of those in the 1st century church who scorned the eating of meat offered to idols. But Paul was very clear on the issue of doubtful things & told them essentially to do what you just did: swallow their vomit - quit making judgments/doctrine/law out of doubtful things. Voting is certainly a doubtful thing.

But when wickedness rears its ugly head, high and proud for all to see, all doubts disappear for those that are willing to remove their blinders and take their fingers out of their ears.

Quit singing "LA LA LA LA LA", nm.

 

[nicholsmom]

But when wickedness rears its ugly head, high and proud for all to see, all doubts disappear for those that are willing to remove their blinders and take their fingers out of their ears.

Quit singing "LA LA LA LA LA", nm.

It's wicked to vote? Howso?

 

[drbrumley]

10 posts, and what have we learned? Nothing new really.

No offense to the Fogman and momma. They got ripped to shreds. They took up the indefensible position of voting for a slouch in McCain cause, well....he isn't Obama, when McCains track record is a tad worse. But also sadly, the best part of the entire debate happened in this thread when Graph asked Clete about "I vote against" voting booths. I was voting for Baldwin coming in, and after this debate, I am still voting for Baldwin.

 

[drbrumley]

Don't hate me now Fogman and Nicholsmom. I believe you really believe what you posted in the Royal, but to me it was no contest from the beginning.

But you did win a nice Battle Royal pin for everyone to see for participating. :up:

 

[Stripe]

I see the contest as between a side dedicated to doing right versus a side dedicated to stopping things getting worse. They could work together, but only one side could possibly change to make that a good thing.

 

[nicholsmom]

10 posts, and what have we learned? Nothing new really.

Me either. It is as I suspected, rather a waste of time to do a whole BR. I do like the pin

I was voting for Baldwin coming in, and after this debate, I am still voting for Baldwin.

Good luck with that.

Have you checked out the article I linked? It really is a good read.

Has anyone here checked out the article I linked? I might just have to post the thing in its entirety if nobody bothers... :sibbie:

 

[CabinetMaker]

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cdmorris%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> I had an opinion prior to the debate but I tried to keep an open mind and heart as read through the debate. I have been wrong before and, no doubt, I will be wrong again.

After reading both sides of the debate, I do not find any compelling evidence that it is immoral to vote for McCain. I appreciate team GG's devotion to the letter of God's word but the examples they used to draw similarities between abortion and slavery, bank robbery, school intruders and the Holocaust tended to weaken rather than strengthen their argument. They were attempting to show that by participating in a crime, you are equally guilty of that crime. While this is true, they failed to show how a president who knows nothing about any particular decision made by a private citizen can be held responsible for that decision. Especially if the president disagrees with that decision and would have counseled against it had he been present. God does not hold us responsible for the sins of others.

In the end, they did a fine job of proving that to vote for somebody who advocates killing children would, indeed, be an immoral act. However, they never offered any evidence that any candidate actually supports killing children. To be sure, there are candidates who support a woman’s right to have an abortion. However, team GG failed to offer any supporting evidence of where McCain, or even Obama, has ever stated that they would force an abortion for any reason. Team GG’s rhetoric is always phrased such that the candidate is portrayed as actively advocating (forcing) that a child be killed. This is an assertion that is not supported by the facts. No candidate has ever said they would kill children. (This does raise the interesting question of collateral damage during times of war. If a president orders an attack that results in the death of innocent children, is he guilty of murder?)

Within the confines of this debate, on the sole issue of whether it is immoral to vote for John McCain, team GG failed to prove that such a vote is an immoral act.

 

[Delmar]

Exactly!

What makes you think that a principle that works against the Democrats doesn't function against the conservatives in the same way?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

When it comes to defeating McCain, Keyes is Obama's friend just as when it comes to defeating Obama, McCain is our friend. We my not like McCain but that doesn't have anything to do with it! If the goal here is to defeat the worse of two evils then McCain is the only candidate that can get that job done. The question is how badly do we want it done and are we going to be tricked into thinking that we have to get into bed with McCain just because we voted against Obama. The use of one's enemy to defeat a greater enemy is a wise thing to do.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm counting on it working the same way! I would like to see the Republicans take a hard Right!