OT OT OT - WARNING - RELIGIOUS CONTENT - OT OT OT OT

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:42 pm

http://theanswerorg.wordpress.com/

Bullard4075 · Post by **Bullard4075** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:10 pm

Well reasoned and well written.
I wish to comment on one thing though. You wrote 6 times "If you vote".
The impression I get is that you may not vote, or at least that not voting is a valid choice. I respectfully disagree.
I feel that voting is a duty.
Sometime we forget that not making a decision ....IS making a decision.
If you don't vote then you have no standing to complain.
Pardon me if I misunderstood.

engravertom · Post by **engravertom** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:43 pm

I would think that in a Constitutional Republic, everyone, whether they vote or not, has a right to appeal to the law of the land,or, in other words, to complain.

Take care,

Tom

JReed · Post by **JReed** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:45 pm

I think what Jim is getting at is not all people vote. If I remember right in the last Presidential Election only around 40% of the country voted.

So he is giving advice to the people that do vote.

Great read Jim thanks.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:45 pm

Jim,
Good stuff.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:47 pm

Whether or not I vote, it will be my attempt to follow my conscience.

If the choice is between two evils, I will not vote for the "lesser" since I have no desire or inclination to knowingly vote for evil.

FALPhil · Post by **FALPhil** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:02 pm

I like the "If you vote, vote your conscience" part. If we all did that, the Republicans and Democrats would be out of business. Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference in them.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:20 pm

Bullard4075 wrote:Well reasoned and well written.
I wish to comment on one thing though. You wrote 6 times "If you vote".
The impression I get is that you may not vote, or at least that not voting is a valid choice. I respectfully disagree.
I feel that voting is a duty.
Sometime we forget that not making a decision ....IS making a decision.
If you don't vote then you have no standing to complain.
Pardon me if I misunderstood.

While this sounds good on the surface, it is simply not true. One must vote his conscience if he (or she) is to be true to themselves and their beliefs. If the choices don't match up to one's standards, it is one's duty NOT to vote or you run the risk of putting your stamp of approval on something you don't approve of. Voting for a turd over a pile of **it is not truly voting. It makes no statement, and at the very least, a vote is a statement.

Votes should be EARNED. Sadly, the chumps in our government think that votes are inherited. Well, they are not.

mklwhite · Post by **mklwhite** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:40 pm

I like democracies myself. Problem is that they can't be very big for the most part.
Republics on the other hand tend to believe that you aren't smart enough or well informed or even care enough to vote on every issue, but you are smart enough and well informed enough and care enough to select someone to represent your best interests... All the time. OK, how about most of the time. Well, some of the time? We wont even get into the issue of if you are being lied to and if you know it do you still vote in hopes that this time they aren't lying. Let's skip on to voting for the president. Do you vote for the president. Nope. You vote on who you want your representatives to vote for. The electoral college plucks that seeming piece of power from your hands too.
It's a heck of a thing, ain't it.

ursavus.elemensis · Post by **ursavus.elemensis** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:49 pm

So what do you think of Huckabee ?

Hagler · Post by **Hagler** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:24 pm

Bullard4075 wrote:Well reasoned and well written.
I wish to comment on one thing though. You wrote 6 times "If you vote".
The impression I get is that you may not vote, or at least that not voting is a valid choice. I respectfully disagree.
I feel that voting is a duty.
Sometime we forget that not making a decision ....IS making a decision.
If you don't vote then you have no standing to complain.
Pardon me if I misunderstood.

The "straw man" label applies to your statements.

If you are aware of voting, then you are aware that voting means that you vote for WHOEVER it is that YOU want to vote for. If your candidate is not on the ballot, then you have a choice to make: vote for someone else, or wait for your candidate to get on a future ballot. Voting is about your right to choose the person that YOU want to hold a certain office.

I wish Louisisana had "none of the above" as a choice.

Shawn

Bullard4075 · Post by **Bullard4075** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:42 am

"If the choice is between two evils, I will not vote for the "lesser" since I have no desire or inclination to knowingly vote for evil."

By not voting you are voting (by definition) for the "greater" evil.

"One must vote his conscience if he (or she) is to be true to themselves and their beliefs. If the choices don't match up to one's standards, it is one's duty NOT to vote or you run the risk of putting your stamp of approval on something you don't approve of."

My mama use to say "You work with what you got and try to make it better".

So - if I have this straight- until the PERFECT candidate comes along we just sit on our hands and whine.

I'll be at the poll.

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:04 am

engravertom wrote:I would think that in a Constitutional Republic, everyone, whether they vote or not, has a right to appeal to the law of the land,or, in other words, to complain.

Take care,

Tom

Sure, you're right. But people who make no effort to participate and make things the way they think they ought to be, but complain about the way things are, are just whiners.

engravertom · Post by **engravertom** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:21 am

Bullard4075 wrote:
By not voting you are voting (by definition) for the "greater" evil.

I thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility?

How is a non voter responsible for the votes of any or all other voters? How is one who votes for a candidate who is "unlikely" to win responsible for all the votes that ultimately elect the greater or lesser "evil" ?

Waiting for the "perfect" candidate is a straw man argument. many of us are arguing that we should vote for an acceptable candidate, not the lesser evil of two unacceptable candidates.

If I choose to write in Ron Paul, or others that I have written in in the past, I am not choosing Hillary, or Obama, or Romney, etc. I choose the one I chose. If Hillary gets elected, blame those who voted for her, not me. Blame the republicans for selling our for so long now, and for not putting up a decent , acceptable alternative.

If a terrorist says to me, "betray your country, or else we will blow up Panama.", when Panama blows up, I am not responsible. The ones who blew it up are.

It sounds a lot like-"Vote for republican X, or else you will get Hillary."

I am no longer a hostage to cowardly, compromising, unprincipled men who call themselves friends of the Republic. They do not own my vote.

take care,

Tom

engravertom · Post by **engravertom** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:29 am

One more thing. It is a grievous mistake to make a certain desired outcome our holy grail. The end does not justify the means.

I believe it was Stonewall Jackson who said,"Duty is ours, the outcome is the Lord's."

What would you rather have? Hillary for 8 years but unprecedented freedom after for centuries to come, or Romney for four years, and a continued slide to slavery forever after?

Of course, no one knows WHAT will happen. That is why we should always do the right thing at any given time. We cannot know or control the outcome of events.

Tom

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:53 am

engravertom wrote:
Bullard4075 wrote:
By not voting you are voting (by definition) for the "greater" evil.

I thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility?

How is a non voter responsible for the votes of any or all other voters? How is one who votes for a candidate who is "unlikely" to win responsible for all the votes that ultimately elect the greater or lesser "evil" ?

Waiting for the "perfect" candidate is a straw man argument. many of us are arguing that we should vote for an acceptable candidate, not the lesser evil of two unacceptable candidates.

If I choose to write in Ron Paul, or others that I have written in in the past, I am not choosing Hillary, or Obama, or Romney, etc. I choose the one I chose. If Hillary gets elected, blame those who voted for her, not me. Blame the republicans for selling our for so long now, and for not putting up a decent , acceptable alternative.

If a terrorist says to me, "betray your country, or else we will blow up Panama.", when Panama blows up, I am not responsible. The ones who blew it up are.

It sounds a lot like-"Vote for republican X, or else you will get Hillary."

I am no longer a hostage to cowardly, compromising, unprincipled men who call themselves friends of the Republic. They do not own my vote.

take care,

Tom

Beautifully put Tom.

Kansas Ed · Post by **Kansas Ed** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:46 am

El Mac wrote:
engravertom wrote:
Bullard4075 wrote:
By not voting you are voting (by definition) for the "greater" evil.

I thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility?

How is a non voter responsible for the votes of any or all other voters? How is one who votes for a candidate who is "unlikely" to win responsible for all the votes that ultimately elect the greater or lesser "evil" ?

Waiting for the "perfect" candidate is a straw man argument. many of us are arguing that we should vote for an acceptable candidate, not the lesser evil of two unacceptable candidates.

If I choose to write in Ron Paul, or others that I have written in in the past, I am not choosing Hillary, or Obama, or Romney, etc. I choose the one I chose. If Hillary gets elected, blame those who voted for her, not me. Blame the republicans for selling our for so long now, and for not putting up a decent , acceptable alternative.

If a terrorist says to me, "betray your country, or else we will blow up Panama.", when Panama blows up, I am not responsible. The ones who blew it up are.

It sounds a lot like-"Vote for republican X, or else you will get Hillary."

I am no longer a hostage to cowardly, compromising, unprincipled men who call themselves friends of the Republic. They do not own my vote.

take care,

Tom
Beautifully put Tom.

+1

Ed

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:11 pm

JimT wrote:Whether or not I vote, it will be my attempt to follow my conscience.

If the choice is between two evils, I will not vote for the "lesser" since I have no desire or inclination to knowingly vote for evil.

Bingo!

Bullard4075 · Post by **Bullard4075** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:25 pm

Sigh

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:49 pm

I think we need a glossary. I would like to know what "evil" means in th context of this thread. There are some politicans in this race, that I think my be stupid, ignorant, petty, wrong headed, have destructive political and social views and a host of other negative adjectives. I am having a hard time, sticking the lable "evil" on them. I think I just don't understand how evil is being used here.

engravertom · Post by **engravertom** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:57 pm

"lesser of two evils."

I take it as a phrase that means neither choice, outcome, event, etc. is desirable, but one is less objectionable.

Therefore, in this context, as I understand it, "Evil" means bad, undesirable,unacceptable, or calamitous.

Sometimes, in the KJV, "evil" can be understood as a calamity, or an unpleasant event that causes great harm.

Whether any particular individual is evil, or an evildoer, is not within the scope of this thread, as I understand it. My definition/understanding of that may be different from others though.

"there is none that doeth good, there is none that seeketh after God, no, not one."

That sums it up for me. There are some worse than others though, and there is also the grace of God.

HTH,

Tom

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:58 pm

From Merriam-Webster:

1 a: morally reprehensible : sinful wicked <an evil impulse> b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2 aarchaic : inferior b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor> c: disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a: causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery> b: marked by misfortune : unlucky

Works for me.

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:27 pm

Shoot, this is getting fun!

There's some comments on here I disagree with but if I mention them it might be misconstrued for believing them, and if I believed in them, that might mean I undersatnd and agree with them, but if I agreed with them I wouldn't need to mention it now would I?

Did I get that correct?

Anyhow, if they all blew up it wouldn't be my fault cause I didn't light the fuse.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:59 pm

I will admit to never having looked up the word "evil". In my mind, evil is the opposite of good in terms of origin. God is the source of all good and the reverse of that means Satan is the source of all evil. Good and evil are polar opposite.

Lots of room between those two poles for folks to be stupid, ignorant, wrong headed, etc, etc, without being evil.

Again, this is just my internal glossary and may not meet common usage standards. A big portion of miscommunication comes from the fact that words mean different things to different people.

Anway... I WILL vote for somebody. I may have to hold my nose while doing so, but I will vote. It just doesn't lie within me not to vote.

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:09 pm

I don't think the word "evil" as used in the phrase "lesser of two evils" necessarily needs to be taken literally. In this context, it can mean the least undesireable of two undesireable choices. At least that's how I've always looked at it.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:20 pm

Claybob has it correct in the sense that I used it. The phrase "vote for the lesser of two evils" is an old one and should literally be taken as "Both are undesireable but one is more undesireable than the other."

I did not mean "evil" as it may be used in a religious context.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:18 pm

OK Jim... That makes sense, but if a Pastor writes in his "blog" that he won't vote for "evil", I would suspect many would take it in a religious context.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:21 pm

Charles wrote:OK Jim... That makes sense, but if a Pastor writes in his "blog" that he won't vote for "evil", I would suspect many would take it in a religious context.

Those that would try and take away inalienable rights of man ARE evil. Those that would stand by and not only let but actually encourage their country to rot from within ARE evil. In whatever context you prefer to use the word evil...it ultimately is the same end result.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:16 pm

Charles wrote:OK Jim... That makes sense, but if a Pastor writes in his "blog" that he won't vote for "evil", I would suspect many would take it in a religious context.

I am sure you are correct. However, I have made many MUCH worse errors both in the pulpit and out of it and have survived.

I am a BIG believer in grace!!

And sometime a few folk have even allowed me to explain what I meant!!

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Jim... There is not a font big enough for me to give you a proper AMEN. I can probably match you mistake for mistake. Thank God, His grace is bigger than our capacity to screw up.

Bullard4075 · Post by **Bullard4075** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:09 am

As the one who "kicked the Beehive" in this thread I would like to say another word or two.
I have been distressed as to the turn this seems to have taken.
I meant NO disrespect whatsoever to Pastor Jim when I opined on his voting choices. I did not make too much of "the lesser of two evils" part and understand what he meant.
The "Sigh

" was my feeling on how the thread was going downhill.
In the future I will listen more and opine less to avoid discontent.

To Pastor Jim I apologize .
I apologize to all who took offense .

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:36 am

Bullard4075 No apology is needed. I took no offense at anything anyone has stated. I sure don't mind when folks disagree with me, especially when they are polite in their disagreement.

I have lived long enough to know that while sometimes I get close, I am rarely correct.

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:13 am

Like Huckabee said, if you're getting flak, you must be over the target.