Posted on 09/30/2007 4:14:53 AM PDT by Man50D
..and he's not running.
Let's please stop putting words and candidates on Dobson!
The only difference left is socialization of health care and raising taxes on the "rich".
No offense. I was just offering a name for the sake of adding information to the thread, which is what I thought was the purpose of FR. I have no intention of putting words and candidates on Dobson. I just recognize a potential spoiler of a Republican victory in the ‘08 race.
Stephen Peroutka is a good man, but.... I hope he reconsiders his plan to run again.
Here is the correct link I meant to post earlier:
http://www.nplac.org/bios/bio-peroutka.html
Stephen G. Peroutka
Chairman of the Board of Governors
National Pro-Life Action Center on Capitol Hill
No, I don’t want to vote for Guiliani. That is why I’m trying not to waste time talking about him, or supporting him in this primary.
But we are continually faced with varying shades of gray.
It's not a perfect world but right is still right and wrong is still wrong, there is no gray area there.
I’m sure you’ve heard this: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
Have never felt inspired by that to do something that went against my principles and vote for the "lesser evil". Edmund Burke probably assumed that good men would be prone to do good things when they act.
It seems that people want to sacrifice their values as if it's expected nowdays. We need to start to reject that mindset and demand the type of candidates that this country deserves.
I for one will never vote for Rudy McRomney. I will go third party first.
Unfortunately, there is another requirement: that the candidate have some reasonable chance of success in a general election. DH is out.
At issue is how much the “large” means, and how much of that “sentiment” is colored by other issues, especially national security. Most people prioritize (Maslow), and if they perceive that national security is THE driving issue, other issues high on the “moral majority’s” list will take a back seat.
That’s not how a majority of Americans perceive it. To most Americans, so far, the border, while important, is a secondary issue to other aspects of national security. And I’d wager that certainly the large majority of Americans do not consider the illegals already here a national security issue, but a social/fiscal/crime issue.
Then get behind a viable candidate and support him to prevent Giuliani from becoming the nominee!
I have a list in order of preferrance:
Hunter
Paul
Thompson
It makes a lot more sense to support a third party candidate then to stay at home. By staying at home you are basically giving up on getting a good President. On the other hand, by supporting a third party candidate you still have the chance to win if you recruit a good enough candidate and put together a strong enough coalition. Not to mention the fact that if this third party candidacy is done right it could well lay the foundation for a serious re-alignment in politics and the formation of a much more conservative party to eventually replace the Republican Party (in much the same way that the Republican party was founded by Abolitionists who split off from the moderate Wig party and the Wig party descended into irrelevance.)
You may not like Dobson taking a stand like this but it certainly doesn’t make him a “jesse jackson.” What Dobson is doing is putting his principles before power. I am sure that when he started down this road he knew that it would make many people like yourself angry. However, Dobson and many social conservatives like myself believe that abortion is murder and will not under any condition support a candidate who has publically supported the murder of the Innocent. He could jump on Thompson’s bandwagon but Thompson seems to view social conservativism as rather unimportant and has a very lackluster history on the abortion issue. So, a President Thompson would simply lead to four more years of an increasingly socially “moderate” Republican Party. So, Dobson appears has done the one honorable thing to do. He has drawn a line in the sand and is prepared to fight for his convictions. Many social conservatives like myself agree with Dobson and are prepared to draw the same line in the sand.
There are not just a few conservatives who feel that a vote for Rudy is the same as voting for Hillary.
I don't think it's going to come down to that, though. I'm pretty confident Rudy isn't going to be the nominee.
I don't agree. He has voted pro-life 100% of the time.
It's not likely that you and I are going to find a meeting of the minds and that's okay. You're a very polite debater.
I would consider it "doing good" to vote for someone whom Republicans have chosen in their primary so that Hillary would not win the presidency.
As a member of the Republican Party, I will support the national candidate. If I decided for whatever reason that I couldn't support that candidate, then I would resign my membership and join another political party who fields candidates I can support. Why be a member of a party when you disagree with the majority decision of that party? Problem with changing membership to a third party is I'd just have to accept the result that I'm throwing my vote away because I don't think a third party candidate can win at this point in time.
Many people throw their votes away in that manner for one reason or another and that's their choice. It's just not going to be mine. As I mentioned before, I voted for Perot out of protest. That was a totally wasted vote, IMO.
Dobson an adult. <>Principle's and politics? Never heard of it.
Actually, he is just keeping his face in the news. Keeping the Dobson, Inc. corporation going.
We live in a political state, not religious, so earthly definitions are by politics. Murder is variably defined by states and over time.
The state can not even fill potholes. It does not stop drugs, nor murder, nor rape nor bad taste. It is a delusion. The delusion that ink on paper, bound in leather, shelved on oak and employing slumberng state minions could find, prosecute, and suppress abortion, which is motivated by gross and widespread malicious values is, again, delusional.
The very nature of the state rests on killing, as much as taxes require deaths to be paid. You think fishermen, miners, factory workers and countless others are not at sea twice as much because they are ordered to pay taxes? They do, and thus their death and maim rates are twice what they would be. Same in most physical occupations. Taxes are paid in blood and death. Those that readily accept state assistance are complicit.
So the seemingly shocking idea of the state being in blood and murder is anything but. Frankly what is the difference between the state and abortion and the fact that millions of responsible couples do not even have children because they are so taxed they can little afford them?
The Catholic Church says the crime begins even before condoms. Why should the state fool around with your definition? Under a Catholic state you would be criminal.
Anyways, religious people looking to the state for anything other than theft and crime wrapped up in the whore cloak of state respectability need to educated themselves. I do not remember anywhere where Jesus advocation any, at all, not once, guidance from the state.
TOTAL BS STORY....NEVER HAPPENED!!!!
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.