Replies

A man who for over 30 years of his adult life by his own admission justified the wholesale slaughter of innocent and helpless human life is purely evil and can and did justify anything. Many times.

Perversely, Romney is just about the only Republican who may actually lose to Obama. Hell, even McCain beat Romney.

Taking the right path is not easy and not popular at this time, but it's the only path.

And, perversely, some who call themselves conservatives are going to help increase the possibility that Romney loses to Obama, the president who has launched the most intense and sustained attack on the Constitutional and economic infrastructure of the United States, the president who favors partial birth abortion, who opposes the infants born alive laws, who is actually doing an end-run around Congress by imposing by edict what he can't get through legislation on any number of issues, all the while praising themselves for allegedly doing the moral thing, the "right" thing out of fear what Romney could do if elected as opposed to what OBAMA IS ACTUALLY NOW DOING.

Your calculus of evil is leaving out an important factor, a third "evil" factor. If Romney is "evil" and Obama is "evil," and a win by an evil guy with a potential evil outcome on the national stage is prevented by the win by an evil guy with an actual ongoing evil effect on both the nation and the world and that win occurs because he got more votes than the other guy, then those who could foil the actual evil by voting for his opponent representing a possible, as-yet-unrealized, and perhaps never-to-be realized evil, who choose not to do so, are choosing instead, whatever else they may want to call it, to do something that will enable the ongoing evil to continue unabated.

A choice to leave evil in place out of fear of an evil that could, though not necessarily, replace it, is that third factor of evil.

The Apostle Paul talked about the perversity of those who say, "Hey, since God is turning my evil deed toward something good, let's do evil so good will result." He didn't go on to talk about those who say, "Hey, let's deliberately refrain from doing something to restrain an ongoing evil because it could result in an outcome that may be evil which means we would be voting for evil so we'll call refraining from that, by doing nothing or deliberating choosing something that has no possible counter-effect, good," because that's a level of perversity basically beyond both imagination and sanity. But even though we don't do evil so good may result, we can, like God, turn something "evil" toward a good end. Preventing Obama from being reelected is good. Enabling him to be reelected is evil. Whatever goes toward the latter end is, therefore, more evil than the former.

The situation as being currently expressed in the "never Romney, even it it results in Obama's reelection" seen here is the level of moral development of someone who would say, if a psychotic axe-wielding murder breaks into his house in pursuit of a victim who had taken refuge there and asks where the victim is hiding, "I will tell him where the refugee is because to do otherwise would be lying and lying is wrong and I have to remain pure before God by not breaking His holy commandment against lying!"

Obama is that axe-wielding murderer.

Edmund Burke said that evil triumphs because good men stand by and do nothing. Those who have the vote but don't use it to defeat Obama by voting for the only one who has a real chance* to defeat the ongoing evil of Obama are choosing to let an actual, demonstrable, ongoing evil prevail out of fear of enabling a potential evil.

*Outside of a fantasy more grandiose than any proffered by leftists except, perhaps, by Lyndon Larouche, the fantasy that, "Hey, if we all just vote for someone other than Obama, even though we didn't manage to get him selected through the primary contests in 50 states, oh, someone who isn't evil but Goode, then everything will turn out okay! But, hey, even though no third party has won a presidential election in, uh, well, ever, this could be the time! To try for anything else is simply evil." That choice, to go for something that has never had any demonstrable possibility of occurring, with the much greater likelihood of leaving in place something that has never before posed such an immediate and ongoing threat from within to our way of life, is a choice that is a much greater evil than voting against Obama by voting for his Republican Party opposition and making adjustments in later, upcoming elections.

The biggest danger of Romney Republicanism is that it leads to just that sort of unprincipled, immoral and illogical contortionism.

even though no third party has won a presidential election in, uh, well, ever,

The republican party WAS the 3rd party when it was just Whigs and Democrats.

I look forward to the republican party going the way of the Whig party.

/johnny

The Apostle Paul talked about the perversity of those who say, "Hey, since God is turning my evil deed toward something good, let's do evil so good will result." He didn't go on to talk about those who say, "Hey, let's deliberately refrain from doing something to restrain an ongoing evil because it could result in an outcome that may be evil which means we would be voting for evil so we'll call refraining from that, by doing nothing or deliberating choosing something that has no possible counter-effect, good," because that's a level of perversity basically beyond both imagination and sanity. But even though we don't do evil so good may result, we can, like God, turn something "evil" toward a good end. Preventing Obama from being reelected is good. Enabling him to be reelected is evil. Whatever goes toward the latter end is, therefore, more evil than the former.

This is one of the most perverse things I've ever read on FR. Prototypical Romney Republican sophistry.

George Washington had a very different way of looking at the world and at circumstance than Romney Republicans, thank God.

"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."
-- George Washington

"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:"

"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

"Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

"And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

"From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

"For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it." -- Isaiah 28:15-20

Translation: making a deal with the devil is always a bad idea. The enemy's horses are always going to be faster. You wrote:

"But even though we don't do evil so good may result, we can, like God, turn something "evil" toward a good end."

God allows evil, to draw us to Him. He doesn't encourage it and He certainly doesn't compromise with it.

The Apostle Paul talked about the perversity of those who say, "Hey, since God is turning my evil deed toward something good, let's do evil so good will result." He didn't go on to talk about those who say, "Hey, let's deliberately refrain from doing something to restrain an ongoing evil because it could result in an outcome that may be evil which means we would be voting for evil so we'll call refraining from that, by doing nothing or deliberating choosing something that has no possible counter-effect, good," because that's a level of perversity basically beyond both imagination and sanity. But even though we don't do evil so good may result, we can, like God, turn something "evil" toward a good end. Preventing Obama from being reelected is good. Enabling him to be reelected is evil. Whatever goes toward the latter end is, therefore, more evil than the former.

This is pure unadulterated and unscriptural perversion to push an illogical and frankly WICKED supposition that is entirely UNBIBLICAL.

First of all, ONLY GOD can turn evil into good according to scripture and the Apostle Paul. NOWHERE in the bible does it even suggest that man can turn evil into good.

Rather, the bible says plainly to resist evil, abhor evil and to OVERCOME evil. It says NOTHING about men turning evil into good - that is something God does Himself. To support evil in any capacity is to support evil - PERIOD.

Romney has a record of promoting and supporting abject evil.

The situation as being currently expressed in the "never Romney, even it it results in Obama's reelection" seen here is the level of moral development of someone who would say, if a psychotic axe-wielding murder breaks into his house in pursuit of a victim who had taken refuge there and asks where the victim is hiding, "I will tell him where the refugee is because to do otherwise would be lying and lying is wrong and I have to remain pure before God by not breaking His holy commandment against lying!"

This is the most asinine and ridiculous attempt at an analogy I've ever read. Only Democrats and KOS morons leap through such convoluted illustrations.

The idea that if we do not vote for Romney we are somehow enabling an axe murderer is beyond insulting and absurd and simply showcases the vapidness the RIO crowd argues.

Biblically-speaking, what aruanan says here, is that it is biblically permissible to support and enable evil if it is put to use against another evil.

There is NOWHERE in scripture that supports such a wicked notion.

But then, this is what passes for Christianity these days.

Lukewarm perversion of scriptures intended to deceive while being deceived and calling evil good, and good evil.

Which is what this argument boils down to.

"And, perversely, some who call themselves conservatives are going to help increase the possibility that Romney loses to Obama, the president who has launched the most intense and sustained attack on the Constitutional and economic infrastructure of the United States, the president who favors partial birth abortion, who opposes the infants born alive laws, who is actually doing an end-run around Congress by imposing by edict what he can't get through legislation on any number of issues, all the while praising themselves for allegedly doing the moral thing, the "right" thing out of fear what Romney could do if elected as opposed to what OBAMA IS ACTUALLY NOW DOING. "

Perfect!

But lets just be honest. These people are EXACTLY LIKE LIBERALS. They keep up the charade even though they KNOW they are dead wrong on every count. They will vote goode or not vote to their own demise (and ours) just to prove their purity. Just stupid on a level that has not yet been defined.

I'll make anyone here a simple bet. I bet either Mitt Romney or Husein Obama will be the next president. The only question is do you as a voter want to have any say in the matter? If not, then it's probably best if you leave the decision to those of us who know better.