So naturally, gun owners will find plenty of reasons to back some other candidate, and will-- before this is through-- resort to blaming "absolutists" who won't jump on the Rudy-Because-Otherwise-We'll-Get-Hillary bandwagon.
"The reality that Christians must keep in mind is this: Any Republican candidate who does not abide strictly by the U.S. Constitution is an oathbreaker and a proven liar. His words are meaningless, his promises are null and void, because he has already demonstrated that he will not hesitate to break his word in the interest of exercising political power." Vox Day
Secular supporters of the Constitution should also keep this in mind. Voting for an oathbreaker is voting for a proven liar.
This crap reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial. Most people are pissed that the jury let OJ walk.
What they don't consider is the fact that the prosecution's star witness swore under oath that he had never said the "N-word" before in his life.
The defense then offered rebuttal evidence in the form of a recording in which the star witness said the offending word umpteen times.
Thus, the jury correctly decided that they could not ascertain when Mr. Star Witness was lying - only that he was willing to lie under oath. Thus, they properly disregarded all of his testimony, and OJ walked. That incident was a problem with the prosecution.
So we all know that the oathbreakers are proven liars. I'm not smart enough to determine whether they are telling the truth about other matters. I have to go with the fact that they are liars.
Those who "... vote for 'bad' so they don't get 'worse' ..." are making a choice tantamount to picking in which orifice they'll be sodomized. Since I prefer to not be violated (politically or otherwise), I too $upport Ron Paul and will write him in should he not be the Republicrat nominee.
EEEUUUUU!!! MuzzleBlast did you have to say that? That's a bad mental image. I get a kick out of people who have said in the past that I should overlook the one thing the candidate is wrong about (ie a pro-abortion stanch) and vote for what's best for the party, which of course has gotten us nowhere. But now that there is a candidate I agree with on every issue except Iraq - "Why that man is dangerous, don't vote for him." is their cry. I'm supposed to (and have) hold my nose and vote for some idiot, but they don't reciprocate (David, that college ranking is in the bag). Ron Paul is probably the most constitutionally correct candidate we've had since Thomas Jefferson.
I'm tired of people saying they'll vote for 'bad' so they don't get 'worse'.
ReplyDeleteI am supporting Ron Paul to win, and if for some reason he doesn't get the nomination, I'm writing him in.
"The reality that Christians must keep in mind is this: Any Republican candidate who does not abide strictly by the U.S. Constitution is an oathbreaker and a proven liar. His words are meaningless, his promises are null and void, because he has already demonstrated that he will not hesitate to break his word in the interest of exercising political power." Vox Day
ReplyDeleteSecular supporters of the Constitution should also keep this in mind. Voting for an oathbreaker is voting for a proven liar.
This crap reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial. Most people are pissed that the jury let OJ walk.
What they don't consider is the fact that the prosecution's star witness swore under oath that he had never said the "N-word" before in his life.
The defense then offered rebuttal evidence in the form of a recording in which the star witness said the offending word umpteen times.
Thus, the jury correctly decided that they could not ascertain when Mr. Star Witness was lying - only that he was willing to lie under oath. Thus, they properly disregarded all of his testimony, and OJ walked. That incident was a problem with the prosecution.
So we all know that the oathbreakers are proven liars. I'm not smart enough to determine whether they are telling the truth about other matters. I have to go with the fact that they are liars.
Thus, I have to vote for Ron Paul.
Ned
Those who "... vote for 'bad' so they don't get 'worse' ..." are making a choice tantamount to picking in which orifice they'll be sodomized. Since I prefer to not be violated (politically or otherwise), I too $upport Ron Paul and will write him in should he not be the Republicrat nominee.
ReplyDelete..I too $upport Ron Paul ..
ReplyDeleteI've sent as much as I can muster so far, was especially rewarding to send some on Nov 5th :-)
EEEUUUUU!!! MuzzleBlast did you have to say that? That's a bad mental image. I get a kick out of people who have said in the past that I should overlook the one thing the candidate is wrong about (ie a pro-abortion stanch) and vote for what's best for the party, which of course has gotten us nowhere. But now that there is a candidate I agree with on every issue except Iraq - "Why that man is dangerous, don't vote for him." is their cry. I'm supposed to (and have) hold my nose and vote for some idiot, but they don't reciprocate (David, that college ranking is in the bag). Ron Paul is probably the most constitutionally correct candidate we've had since Thomas Jefferson.
ReplyDelete