Posted on 10/07/2003 8:00:51 AM PDT by truthandlife
Yep. Some seem in favor of slow death for 3rd worlders via malnutrition and starvation.
In talking with a group of people (all highly educated, most w/2 graduate degrees), the conversation got around to genetically modified food.
one enlightened soul said that, even though it 'sounded bad,' we should not allow 3rd worlders to have GM food because it would increase the population. it would be better if they died.
as the only person of color in the group, i was a little miffed, but not surprised, that no one said anything against this racist statement. i finally had to say something about it and why don't we stop feeding little white kids here in the us as that would also decrease world population, etc.
ever since seeing the conservative light, i have come to believe that liberalism is simply racism wearing nicer sheets. the liberal line is - as a person of color, you are inadequate and therefore need affirmative action and our (white) help, you need to be bussed to white schools because you can only learn if sitting next to a white kid, and it's ok to kill brown and black kids so that the world will remain in some imagined, pre-human pristine state.
even in my most leftist, socialist worker party days, it never occured to me that it was ok to doom people to starvation because i didn't approve of how they were being fed.
Wanting to prevent this is "idolatry?"
As John Quincy Adams said, "Duty is ours; results are God's."
It is your duty to make sure the racist will win? The preferred candidate of Planned Parenthood? The man who believes that those who break the law should be rewarded? This is Christian duty?
Whether we win or lose, whether we sit at the table or eat on a blanket in the back yard, whether we receive any phone calls from the White House
Your assertion that Christians vote for less than perfect government over outright evil government because we want to be kissed up to is unjustified and arrogant.
Heck, in a field with 135 candidates, there's probably some guy with .0001% in the pols who is an even more godly man or woman than McClintock. Why not fulfill your Christian duty and vote for him/her? Why not write in a candidate who you think would be ideal? Heck, write me in, I'm a hard-core pro-lifer and fiscal conservative. Of course, you'll be helping a racist pro-abort get elected, but you can go to sleep knowing you endorsed me, a guy who would have been a great governeor if he could have gotten a few tens of millions more people to vote for him.
I assure you, it's for a "good" cause.
Bishop Sean P. O'Malley, OFM Cap.
It isn't about parties. Do you really think I'm advocating Arnold because he has "(R)" in front of his name? Get a grip. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, useless gestures don't save babies.
There are people who voted for Ross Perot in '88 and '92 "on principle" and we got 8 years of Clinton. I don't see how that would be any less stupid and wasteful if you changed his platform to absolute perfection. On September 11th, we reaped the fruits of voting on "principle" to help Bill Clinton into office.
.a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll released earlier this week shows that McClintock is not exactly unknown, nor is he as negatively viewed as either Schwarzenegger or Bustamante. Consider the following results of a poll of probable voters: Is the Party Establishment Right About the Recall?
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Favorable: 63
Unfavorable: 30
Never Heard Of: 0
No Opinion: 7
Tom McClintock
Favorable: 62
Unfavorable: 20
Never Heard Of: 4
No Opinion: 14
Cruz Bustamante
Favorable: 37
Unfavorable: 54
Never Heard Of: 3
No Opinion: 6
I was disgusted by those who backed Arnold over McClintock right out of the chute. All conservatives should have spurned Arnold and united to back Tom to the hilt. But now, we find ourselves in a situation where we have the choice between a GOP pro-abort and a racist pro-abort who wants to reward illegal immigrants.
Oh, and let's not forget that Cruz is OK with this...
I take back what I said earlier to truthandlife about voting for perot (or McClintock) being a wasteful act. No one who votes in Cali today will be throwing their vote away. Every vote will either help or hurt the chosen candidate of Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, the L.A. Times, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, MECHA, etc., ad nauseum, Cruz Bustamante.
Helping the guy endorsed by the abortion industry: Man the pure goodness of such an act just gives me the vapors.
A vote that makes it more likely that the chosen candidate of Planned Parenthood makes it into office doesn't sound like a pro-life vote to me.
If the next Al-Qaida strike is carried out by a guy with a Cali "illegal immigrant deluxe model" driver's license issued by a secretary of state working for Governor Bustamante, how's your conscience going to be doing?
No kidding. But the fact remains that Arnold isn't pro-abortion enough for any of the abortion industry lobby groups, Bustamante is, and pro-lifers who get in the booth today and vote for McClintock are going to be helping Cruz, nothing more. Their vote will not help one baby make it out of the womb alive, but it will help put a racist in office who has been endorsed by every hateful enemy of our cause from Kate Michelman and Jesse Jackson to Bill Clinton and Howard Dean. And I reiterate...
"If the next Al-Qaida strike is carried out by a guy with a Cali "illegal immigrant deluxe model" driver's license issued by a Secretary of State working for Governor Bustamante, how's your conscience going to be doing?"
Thank you, I appreciate 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.