Christian perspective on the election, please

[DarthRetard]

Eenie Meenie Miney Moe, since the year 2000 in my county. (I live in the county with the "hanging chad" incident, by the way. Sucks to be me.)

[IDrinkaRum]

Heh Darth, I live in Northern VA. We never know if we're Republican or Democrat and I'm thinking Northern VA is going to break away from the rest of VA soon.

[Seshat]

Well, I looked at Ron Paul's website. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I'm highly unimpressed.

Christmas in Secular America is ignorant and paranoid. There's a huge difference between asking that government institutions not have an overt Christian bias and trying to "transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity", as he declares to be the case.

I've been looking at a lot of the other articles he's written. He disagrees with me on a lot of fundamental things, but most of those are things which I acknowledge people have a right to disagree with me about. (Abortion being one major example.)

However, he makes errors of fact in lots of little ways. Things which would be perfectly fine in a normal person, but which are serious problems in a presidential candidate. Nothing major, nothing which I can point to without looking nitpicky. But enough to make me think he needs to employ a fact-checker before publishing any of his articles, and he needs to be prepared to completely rewrite and rethink on the basis of what she says.

A president's opinions must be based on accurate facts, or at least facts as accurate as he (or she) can get. Ron Paul seems to be just a bit too careless of fact for my tastes. Or, of course, there's the less generous interpretation that he prefers facts which fit his theories. I don't know which it is, so I'll assume he's simply careless of fact.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I've even turned off Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and I love to listen to them.

Anybody who rips on Michael J. Fox because of his disease isn't worth listening to, IMO.

[AFPheonix]

Anybody who rips on Michael J. Fox because of his disease isn't worth listening to, IMO.

Anyone who flat out lies on a daily basis, calls for the sword of Damocles for drug addicts except for when he himself has to go in for treatment, and is an all around asshole blowhard isn't worth listening to.
As for O'Reilly, anyone who calls himself fair and balanced when he is painfully conservative is a moron. Hell, the fact that he was agreeing with Kirk Cameron about Intelligent Design tells me he's not worth listening to, either. And that's not even getting into his little loofah event, or his lying about some award he never got and many other things that he's done or said.

I'm not even getting into other blowhards like Sean Hannity or others of his ilk.

[daleduke17]

Here's a few reasons I won't vote for any of the "Big Three":

- I don't believe they are doing their jobs right now. Obama, Clinton and McCain are all three Senators representing Illinois, New York and Arizona respectively. Are they in Washington D.C. representing their states in the Senate? No. Well, not at least as much as they should. If the Senate is in session, then those three should have their butts in their seats. If I missed work to go and do other projects, I'd be fired.

- Obama and Clinton aren't in it for the right reasons in my opinion. All it looks like, to me, is that they are running so they can have their name in the history books.

- I flat don't agree with a lot of what the three are spewing. I'm against Universal Health Care, I'm against the US being in Iraq, and I'm against illegal aliens being rounded up and given a "pathway to citizenship" (I'm for the "pathway" home).

I'll do it again, and it will probably be considered a waste, but I am voting for a third party. I want actual change. Have I decided who I want to vote for yet, no, but, I still have time to look.

[DarthRetard]

DaleDuke17, according to MSN.com, (give me some time to find the link) only around 12-14% of americans identify them with one of the big two parties.

[Seshat]

- I flat don't agree with a lot of what the three are spewing. I'm against Universal Health Care.

This thread (Some risky legislation) ended up with a long digression into Universal Health Care. I'd be interested in you telling us if you have reasons against Universal Health Care that we didn't cover in that thread. Pretty please? :bambi-eyes:

I'm always interested in new ideas. I've come to understand the 'againsts' that are mentioned in that thread, but if you have new ones, I'm curious and I wanna know. And you may be interested in the 'for' reasons in that thread.

[Ree]

The DIAF comment was a joke, and though out of line, I do apologize for it's abrasiveness.

Again, sorry for the DIAF comment, it seemed funny juxtaposed with the <3, guess not everybody thought so.

Actually, having it next to the <3 made it that much more insulting, rather than funny or even tongue-in-cheek.

Anyway, you apologized so I guess that makes it fine until next time. <3

[daleduke17]

This thread (Some risky legislation) ended up with a long digression into Universal Health Care. I'd be interested in you telling us if you have reasons against Universal Health Care that we didn't cover in that thread. Pretty please? :bambi-eyes:

I'm always interested in new ideas. I've come to understand the 'againsts' that are mentioned in that thread, but if you have new ones, I'm curious and I wanna know. And you may be interested in the 'for' reasons in that thread.

Most of the ideas were spot on to why I'm against.

[Seshat]

Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to check - I'm always curious about such things.
And if you're curious about my opinions & counter-ideas, they're in the thread too. I can clarify anything if you want.

[Dark-Star]

My view on the election is this:

When all is said and done in 2008 we will have chosen do to one of these things
1. Set off firecrackers at a gas station
2. Drink a gallon of bleach
3. Play 'chicken' with a freight train

How does this relate, you ask? The choices and the resulting actions are different...but in the end just as destructive. Besides Ron Paul and a few splinter-party candidates who don't even have a snowball's chance, the different candidates (McCain, Hillary, Obama) will end up being just as harmful to the US in different ways.

Barring a massive miracle this once great land is screwed. Not just by the horrid election choices but by consequences of other things that are coming to roost at the same time.