Posted on 07/13/2012 9:00:22 PM PDT by techno
I think pride and prejudice have gotten the best of you, and you will be scolded for failing to take advantage of the opportunity God gave you to get rid of Obama!
It doesn't matter if who I vote for wins.
What does matter is what I do.
/johnny
I would not say that. The Democratic party may indeed have its roots in the Democratic-Republican party, but I wouldn't go so far to say they are the same party, the simple fact remains that a D-R candidate from yesteryear would not fit at all in the Democratic party today.
Some people would agree and point out that the co-opting occurred about the same time they took the word 'liberal'. That group has shown itself as skilled at camouflage as a chameleon.
Just because he doesn't intend to do it doesn't mean that he won't.
Romney is a socialist; he will implement socialism. I believe that if given a chance socialism will destroy this country.
Therefore, I consider a vote for Romney to be a vote to destroy the country, all intentions notwithstanding.
If God scolds me for that, it won't be the only thing I get in trouble for.
Explain the table setting on the neighbor's roof...
The list goes on.
I sin. I'm human. I try to keep the required explanations to a minimum.
/johnny
You mean the nuclear secrets that Clintoon sold to the ChiComs for campaign contributions wasn’t damaging ?
"If you don't vote for Romney I'll scream an shout and pout!" is what you hear then?
Seems accurate enough.
As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.
Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several "stimulus" bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government's agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about "global warming" for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class's continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.
Never has there been so little diversity within America's upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and "bureaucrat" was a dirty word for all. So was "social engineering." Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday's upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.
Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America's ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.
The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century's Northerners and Southerners -- nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, "prayed to the same God." By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God "who created and doth sustain us," our ruling class prays to itself as "saviors of the planet" and improvers of humanity. Our classes' clash is over "whose country" America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark's Gospel: "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
Dude, I’m no turd-party clown. I think voting that way is the height of Onanism - it means forsaking the country solely for the pursuit of one’s own pleasure.
For the most part they wouldn’t fit in. However there were some, those who set up Jacobin clubs, who would fit in today. They had their share of Robespierre supporters who would feel at home in today’s Democrat Party.
But yeah... that about covers it.
Either my vote doesn't count, or I'm personally responsible for re-electing Obama. Take your pick.
/johnny
I don't want that suffering either; but I think the suffering might be required. As CS Lewis said it is in pain that God shouts to us... and let's face it, Romney is a socialist and will implement socialism (just as Obama has done); therefore, we can conclude that the GOP is pushing socialism as well as the Democratic party.
If a Slick Willie type of candidate was running for the Dems, I wouldn't really care who you voted for. The consequences wouldn't be as damaging. But our efforts at this time should be focused on removing the US’s version of Hugo Chavez, Obama.
But we wouldn't have near a many of these [Obama created/exaggerated] problems if Congress was doing its job... or the courts. Let's face the facts: bad things are happening because good men are doing nothing.
*nod* -- I understand that.
We agree to disagree. I think we agree on the destination, but not which road to take to get there.
Do as you feel required to do.
I will not vouchsafe that. It is yours by right.
Please respect my requirements for what I must do. Not asking for a blessing. Just a truce.
/johnny
Romney, working with RINOs, can legislation passed Obama could only dream of.
Another failed Republican Presidency repeats the cycle we just went through -- Republicans losing Congress and the White House and someone as bad as Obama assuming power.
I’m supporting Goode because he’s the only prolifer on the ballot. FUMR!
My friend - totally agreed. The folks wrapped up in their minds, in some fantasy that on earth you can escape evil, may or may not come to realize that being so stuck on the righteousness of your own thoughts that you would do harm by omission is Pride. I believe that’s considered a pretty serious sin.
Then again, the original meaning of ‘sin’ is not ‘you’re a bad and awful person’ ... it means, literally “to miss the mark,” as say, when a warrior on horseback shoots his arrow at a target and misses 6 inches to the left.
In our case, thought, this is not target practice. People’s lives will be deeply affected by the outcome of this election.
There is a saying that covers the reason they feel so self righteous. So I say to them “you’re right, dead right.” Dead being the key word.
There is however one valid reason for an intelligent person rationally and morally to not vote. If he stands by this reason, then he must believe something most are unwilling to entertain, and he could only believe this if he is capable of seeing mankind in a broader view. I don’t mean broader globally - I mean historically. I’ve yet to hear it, and I’ve yet to see anything rational or moral in the arguments of those on the I-Hate-Romney kick. If anyone thinks they are committed to this reason, I’d be interested in a direct response to that question. And if you do know the answer, then you are actually morally obligated to actively vote FOR Obama. God will support you if your reasoning is correct.
The EMT analogy is absolutely correct for those of us who will be voting for Romney.
To ignore the significance of the threat an economic crisis poses to a Free Republic, structurally, while not what I referred to above, is tantamount to being for forced abortion and health control rationing for young kids with leukemia. Communism needs a crisis in order for the people to invite it in.
You want a crisis? Then pee away your vote however you like. Abortion will not cause war. Health Control will not cause war. An economic crisis will, and it will instantly and radically change the structural nature of whatever freedom is left. It’s everything a well planned Marxist aims for. instability is his friend, crisis is his winning lottery ticket.
Whatever happens, We WILL be looking at a pro-abortion president. We WILL be looking at a president who advocated for health control. We MAY OR MAY NOT be looking at the kind of economic crisis that has always been the-thing-just-before-a-country-goes-to-war-against-its-own-people in countries led by charismatic combinations of deceitfulness and narcissism, self aggrandizement to the point of megalomania.
Let’s cut the silly juxtaposition of rationalizing in a fit of emotional infancy. If you are from a state such as Virginia or Ohio or another tipping point state, and you choose not to vote, or to vote something in a fit of rage rather than a well thought out strategy that benefits your countrymen, you may be the non-vote that tips the election. That’s true whether you’re a duck adept at getting scolded or not.
Anyway ... long way of saying ‘I agree with you wj ...’
I’m interested if any of the I-Will-Not-Cast-A-Vote-For-Mittens crew knows the moral reasoning, a reasoning God would support, and that can be supported by a coherent argument rather than disgust, for not voting for Romney ... and why it’s only logical conclusion is to also vote for Obama ...?
Actions have consequences. By nominating Romney, you’re telling every social conservative and prolifer that our vote isn’t needed. :) Good luck with that.
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.