Posted on 05/11/2012 8:46:14 PM PDT by LouAvul
|
|
I will just add this to my list of reasons not to vote in the Nov. elections.
Maybe you have plenty of company.
This is still the primary after all, and there ARE other choices.
Our Lord always leaves an alternative to temptation.
Caving into fear serves as a temptation.
Don’t not vote. Surely you can find a third party or write in candidate. Not voting counts as a vote for “I don’t care” whereas voting third party says both major candidates are unacceptable. It may not help this election but who knows what seeds may be planted.
To clarify, you will be voting down ticket, right? I hope your ballot offers you an alternative candidate maybe to vote for as president, besides the two redistributers of wealth.
Lou. I’m not going to quote scipture to you.However, The Book tells us to render unto Cesar... We are bound by his words to obey those in government power. So you chose to let others select the one to publish the proclmations that you will be required to obey. Check a little closer and make a more informed decision occording to The Book. Analize the whole man. Which do you have more in common with? May His Words reveal to you.
I cannot blame you for thinking you are standing up for principles, but what is our alternative?
We don’t really have a choice - that went out 2 centuries ago. We are only given a highly limited choice. Write-ins don’t happen. So, as they say - the lesser of 2 evils.
Bear in mind a certain segment is going to be out in force as it never is, again for Uhbama, and probably tips everything for him. The fewer vote R, the MUCH more likely D this election, almost like ‘08.
I think there is a whole lot of extrapolatin’ going on here. :)
I feel the same way. We should ask people with children, “If something happened to you , would you want the government to turn your children over to a couple of queers to be raised?
Oh puleeze.
First off, despite Romney’s statement I don’t believe the president has a damned thing to do with state adoption laws.
Next, to the extent the federal courts weigh in on the Constitutionality of state adoption laws, you sure are not going to get more conservative judges with Obama.
Third, Obama is for gay, in fact LGBT, everything, marriage, adoption the whole nine yards.
Finally, this is not a one issue election. The list of issues is a mile long, and they are important. They include whether religious institutions will be forced to engage in stuff they do not believe in, like gay marriage. So with Obama your church eventually will be harrassed and accused of hate crimes.
I love that!
To clarify, I will be voting for everything except for President. I will not go the write in option (as a poll worker, I know what a pain that is) knowing that my vote will mean nothing.
I agree. There so are many alarmingly liberal/statist positions that Romney has supported that are screaming warning-signals all over the place. But this “gay adoption” thing is the one that truly makes me want to wretch the most. Sick, sick, sick.
I’ve never in my entire life voted for a damned liberal, but THIS is what the GOP is serving up for us? They’ve gone out of their ever-lovin’ minds. I’ve grown convinced that the whole upper-echelon Republican Party apparatus is being run by fifth-columnist style Democrat saboteurs.
And since we have no king, and We The People are the Sovereign in the united States, that would be rendering unto ourselves as we are led.
I won't vote for Romney. Ever.
/johnny
Here in New Mexico we do not have a ‘primary’ to choose from as well. I’ll be writing in a candidate. It really sucks and is disenfranchising. Makes me want to donate to the RNC...
“We are bound by his words to obey those in government power”
~ ~ ~
Explain, what do you mean? Thanks.
I feel the same way. We should ask people with children, “If something happened to you , would you want the government to turn your children over to a couple of queers to be raised?
“It may not help this election but who knows what seeds may be planted.”
If Romney, like McCain before him, goes down in flames - perhaps, just PERHAPS the GOP will figure it out that a Conservative is the one they need to put the effort into.
Romney assaulted religious liberty, particularly the Catholic Church, in the cram down enforcement of RomneyCare, only he did it first in MA, before Obama.
Vote for the Romney, the template for Obamacare, individual mandate, assaulting religious liberty, and the redistribution of wealth.
Romney assaulted religious liberty, particularly the Catholic Church, in the cram down enforcement of RomneyCare, only he did it first in MA, before Obama.
Vote for the Romney, the template for Obamacare, individual mandate, assaulting religious liberty, and the redistribution of wealth.
That’s what I’m going for. I won’t vote Romney. I expect him to lose. And I hope the GOP-e is more open to Conservartives in 2016 (if we still have elections).
If Obama gets in you probably have unless you consider voting "Da" for the only candidate that will be allowed on the ballot as they did in the Soviet Union for several generations as meaningful voting.
This is who Romney is...
In 2005, the Boston Globe revealed that Catholic Charities of Boston had placed a small number of special-needs children with homosexual couples for adoption. The Archdiocese of Boston responded in early 2006, stating it would no longer place children with homosexual couples (as the Church considers homosexuality “gravely immoral”). A media storm quickly followed.
Responding to charges that it was illegally discriminating against homosexuals, the Archdiocese then asked the state to grant a religious exemption to Catholic Charities, but the Legislature balked. Existing Massachusetts non-discrimination laws referencing “sexual orientation” plus “legal gay marriage” would not allow the Church to follow its moral precepts, it was claimed.
Governor Romney said his hands were tied by the law, the Legislature’s refusal to act, and the Supreme Court ruling which had forced same-sex marriage on the state. All he could do was to file a bill to “protect religious freedom” in Massachusetts, specifically targeting the laws covering adoption, and hope for the best. The Legislature then killed his bill, and the Church had to end its adoption services in order not to violate its own tenets. But Romney had done all he could for religious freedom!
But that’s not exactly what happened. In fact, Romney erroneously blamed the Church’s predicament on non-existent law and could have rescinded the administrative regulations that would not let Catholic Charities deny placement of children with homosexual couples. Romney also failed to point out that religious freedom was already protected in both the state and federal constitutions. The Archdiocese could have fought this in court but did not — perhaps out of fear of losing major donors with liberal views (who were well represented on Catholic Charities’ board). In the end, the homosexual activists and their allies got their way, and it was another public whipping for the Catholic Church — all of which Romney could have prevented.
Romney falsely claimed the law required Catholic Charities to place children with homosexual couples. ...
This story is significant because it lays bare Romney’s hypocrisy and self-contradiction. He simultaneously accepted homosexuality and laws or policies banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” yet blamed those very laws or policies for threatening “religious freedom.” If he understood that conflict in March 2006, how could he ever have supported laws banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation”? (It is unclear whether he still supports such laws; see Chapter II.) Did he (and does he) not see how they set up conflicts with basic constitutional rights?
Romney blamed Massachusetts law for the problem. But there is no overarching law in Massachusetts concerning “sexual orientation” discrimination. The phrase “sexual orientation” appears in only certain specific Massachusetts statutes (signed into law by Democrat Governor Michael Dukakis in 1989). In any case, these statutes do not trump freedom of religion, constitutionally protected both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution.
One could even question Romney’s motives. He had said in 2003 that he favored “adoptive parent rights” for same-sex couples, but on many other instances tried to sidestep that question. In a clear statement at the height of the Catholic Charities adoption story, he said that same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children...
...and you felt compelled to eat up bandwidth on this site to put this up?
Vote for whoever the hell you want to vote for, but keep it to yourself in the future.
This site is better than this high-school crap.
Then write someone in. We need to take back the Senate. Not voting in NOT an option.
Yeah right, reelect Obama.
Do you realize Obama is disarming us? I mean really disarming the United States? That tens of millions or more may die in a nuclear war because we are so weak. That Israel is on the precipice. The list is too long that’s enough.
And Romney opposes Obamacare and will support it’s repeal, whereas Obama, let me think .... Obamacare. But yeah, keep Romney out of there. Which means keeping Obama in.
Jeez, we’ve all known it since September 10, 2004!
Join the club.
No Romney, no way.
He’s always been a pandering homo-hugger.
And - if we can gain more conservative (or at least GOP seats), they will probably be more likely to vote down Obama’s liberal ideas. Whereas with Romney’s liberal ideas they may be more likely to vote yes just because he has an (R) after his name.
That is why I am your king!
===============================================
Dan 2:21 And He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.
It should get more exposure here on FR - maybe there will be fewer arguments and bannings these days...
There are many reasons why I will not bid Godspeed to the Undocumented Kenyan, that is for certain.
See my post 33. I feel that a vote for Romney is just adding more hot water to the pot with the swimming frog. What will come after Romney? Well, perhaps another 4 years of Romney. And then another Liberal candidate. Because, you know, only “moderates” can win elections.
Bingo! The gope gave Obama not a single vote. They will give Romney everything he wants. They LIKE what he did in MA. They own him, and they want to move the party to the LEFT. That’s why they backed him.
“Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”
Those Freepers who still say they’re Republicans are the real RINOs.....the Republican Party, save Reagan, have been about guys like Mitt.
The guy who posted it encouraged us to use it.
I hope the banning thing is over.
Mr. Robinson said he’d called a truce.
I don’t like Romney, but the way I see it he’s all we’ve got.
A stay home or write in is just a vote for the Marxist/Musllim. We’ll need every vote we can muster against him.
I’m not voting for Romney, but against Obama.
We have GOT to get that thing out of the White House
or we are doomed.
And then once Romney gets in we’ll start working to get him out.
You can still vote in down ballot races.
Some of us will do that and leave the Presidential line blank
I agree that the Republican Party is dead. It is only now a vehicle for us conservatives to use, as we have been used by the party, to cause enough chaos to get a convention upset, somehow.
Praying for divine intervention, voting my conscience and trusting God for the rest, but ‘am not going to be found cooperating with evil out of fear.
Trusting a wolf in sheep’s clothing to save us from the current wolf leading the pack makes no sense to me.
We need a miracle. A miracle of Mercy.
No one is giving Obama another vote.
I don’t think God cares who we vote for, this is not the Kingdom of God, man alone could never establish that. Render unto Caesar, and live your life the best you can.
In this case, there is every chance God cares about whom we vote for, but agree with you for sure on the rest. :)
Vote your conscience.
But, I don’t think this is how 2nd John is to be applied.
More in contextt:
” 9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
I can’t see where this is instructing us as to whether to vote for Romney or not. It seems to me, with a quick reading of the text, that it is talking about an evangelist coming around with a false gospel.
I think Mormons have a false gospel, but that’s besides the point, here.
We are not voting on the leader of our church. We are voting for President of the U.S.
Ideally I want Christians in the presidency. I do believe that is the most faithful vote. That doesn’t seem to be an option right now.
So vote for him or don’t, as you are convicted; but I don’t think you should be giving us this verse as though it is instructing us not to vote for Romney.
As for homosexual adoption, I can’t oppose it more strongly than I do. The President doesn’t write law but he sure does influence it. If I thought helping Obama into the presidency would someone keep homosexual adoption from happening, I’d so vote! But I don’t.
The way I see it, unless the guy is a Hitler or somesuch, who makes his intentions clear, nobody really knows what somebody will do once they take office....I’m sure in 2008, Obama fooled a lot of people into thinking he was a Centrist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.