Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Brother Rick

Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

Recommended Posts


Take notice if the seriousness of the disablement on who to vote for or not vote for. And of course its mild here compare to what it is in other places.
I guess I don't care if someone wants to promote "their guy" for President. I'm just really surprised that some are so committed to Ron Paul, of all people. I know all about "spin," and I take the kind of comments you're talking about with a grain of salt...such as the whole explanation of RP's desire to legalize wicked stuff so that states can have "their Constitutional rights." It seems like people get so caught up in all of the hoopla/support for a particular candidate--they get so used to building up a case for that candidate and defending his weak areas--that they become blinded to reason in one or more areas. If prostitution and drug use have to be legalized b/c of so-called states' rights...if more of my fellow American men are dragged to degredation, more families torn apart, and more children neglected because of their parents' drug addictions, all in the name of states' rights...I'm sorry, but states' rights can go straight to the netherworld. If the federal government (with all of its bloated self-importance and wastefulness and blah blah blah) actually makes a right decision, a decision in accordance with God's law, then I rejoice. If I have to choose between the Constitution and the Bible, I'll pick the Bible every time. It's the whole lesser of two evils thing again. No option is ideal. Hey, I'm a states' rights, small government kind of girl! But if the two choices are 1) allow the federal government to ban obvious wickedness that will wreak havoc in our society and 2) give each state an opportunity to decide to legalize these things (which many will) in the name of "the Constitution," common Christian sense tells me that the choice is clear. (The Founders themselves--if they knew the state of American society today--would be outraged at Ron Paul's opinions in this area.) It's a good thing he isn't electable. ;)

I should add that although I've made it known that I'm voting for Gingrich, I am not blind to his many faults. As I've repeatedly stated, he has baggage just like the rest of the candidates. I know that, and I don't defend his marital unfaithfulness. I'm not excited about any of the Repubs--they all have glaring faults. But any of them would be better than Obama.

I do have a question for RP supporters: Will you vote for the Republican nominee against Obama in the general election? Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't care if someone wants to promote "their guy" for President. I'm just really surprised that some are so committed to Ron Paul, of all people. I know all about "spin," and I take the kind of comments you're talking about with a grain of salt...such as the whole explanation of RP's desire to legalize wicked stuff so that states can have "their Constitutional rights." It seems like people get so caught up in all of the hoopla/support for a particular candidate--they get so used to building up a case for that candidate and defending his weak areas--that they become blinded to reason in one or more areas. If prostitution and drug use have to be legalized b/c of so-called states' rights...if more of my fellow American men are dragged to degredation, more families torn apart, and more children neglected because of their parents' drug addictions, all in the name of states' rights...I'm sorry, but states' rights can go straight to the netherworld. If the federal government (with all of its bloated self-importance and wastefulness and blah blah blah) actually makes a right decision, a decision in accordance with God's law, then I rejoice. If I have to choose between the Constitution and the Bible, I'll pick the Bible every time. It's the whole lesser of two evils thing again. No option is ideal. Hey, I'm a states' rights, small government kind of girl! But if the two choices are 1) allow the federal government to ban obvious wickedness that will wreak havoc in our society and 2) give each state an opportunity to decide to legalize these things (which many will) in the name of "the Constitution," common Christian sense tells me that the choice is clear. (The Founders themselves--if they knew the state of American society today--would be outraged at Ron Paul's opinions in this area.) It's a good thing he isn't electable. ;)

I should add that although I've made it known that I'm voting for Gingrich, I am not blind to his many faults. As I've repeatedly stated, he has baggage just like the rest of the candidates. I know that, and I don't defend his marital unfaithfulness. I'm not excited about any of the Repubs--they all have glaring faults. But any of them would be better than Obama.

I do have a question for RP supporters: Will you vote for the Republican nominee against Obama in the general election?

What you say here gives the impression you believe it's okay to disregard the Constittution in order to put forth your preferences but it's not okay when others do so.

There is built within the Constitution the means to change things at that level, and that's the only legal and proper means to do so. When anyone of any view goes about doing what the Constitution doesn't allow, they are breaking the law.

If following the Constitution is such a wicked thing, then how did America manage to do so well for so long doing that and why have most of the upheavals in America been due to attempts to thwart the Constitution?

The fact is, under the Constitution, the federal government is to have very limited duties and powers. Everything else is left to the States and the people. The only reason we are facing such a mess over "same sex marriage" is because the Constitution was usurped, putting most things under the power of those in federal government. Were the Constitution still followed there could be no national effort to push homosexuality upon the nation.

Under the Constitution, the federal government has very limited law enforcement duties and powers. All other matters of law are the domain of the States and people. Under the Constitution, if California legalized the murder of unborn babies, that wouldn't mean the other States had to agree or that there would suddenly be a national court case trying to force abortion upon all States.

The Constitution is pretty plain in what is says and means. For those who still seem to have a problem understanding, and thinking they need more "interpretation", the Founders left plenty of documentation explaining just what was, and wasn't, meant in the Constitution.

As to the politicians in the election now it's very difficult to perceive how anyone could think there would be any signifcant difference between a Newt, Mitt or Barak in the White House. All three are committed to the unconstitutional aspects of the federal government. All three would continue to grow and expand the federal government. All three are comitted to globalization.

How many Republican presidents and Republican congresses do we have to go through, seeing the continuation of America going the wrong direction just as it does with Dems in control, before we realize they are all going the same way?

In my own lifetime we can look from JFK to BHO and see America has steadily gotten worse, not better. Over these years we have had several Republican presidents, none of which stopped the unconstitutional aspects of the federal government nor did anything to restore the Constitution. In face, the federal government grew under each of them.

So, after Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush One and Bush Two, we see America worse now than before. Twenty-eight years of Republican presidents and America still got worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say here gives the impression you believe it's okay to disregard the Constittution in order to put forth your preferences but it's not okay when others do so.

That you, a man who claims to be a Christian, would call the desire to stave off drug abuse, child neglect, prostitution (and everything else that goes along with these clearly anti-biblical, immoral and just plain wicked behaviors) a "preference" just blows my mind. It reveals a lot about where you're coming from (and makes me a whole lot less likely to listen to your views on this subject).

There is built within the Constitution the means to change things at that level, and that's the only legal and proper means to do so. When anyone of any view goes about doing what the Constitution doesn't allow, they are breaking the law.


This statement is meaningless to me. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you clarify? (What level? What things?)

If following the Constitution is such a wicked thing, then how did America manage to do so well for so long doing that and why have most of the upheavals in America been due to attempts to thwart the Constitution?


Did I say that following the Constitution is a wicked thing? The ease with which you attempt to spin what I've said makes me wonder if you should be running for President! ;)

The fact is, under the Constitution, the federal government is to have very limited duties and powers. Everything else is left to the States and the people. The only reason we are facing such a mess over "same sex marriage" is because the Constitution was usurped, putting most things under the power of those in federal government. Were the Constitution still followed there could be no national effort to push homosexuality upon the nation.


What? You cannot be serious, John. The definition of marriage has been left up to each state. It has nothing to do with the federal government. The reason that there is a national effort has nothing to do with the federal government. It has more to do with the courts' abuse of power, combined with the widespread use of technology (resulting in a whole lot more "bandwagons") which are different problems altogether.

The problem is not whether the federal government or the state government decides that same-sex marriage is OK...It's that ANYONE is deciding that it's OK. It's not a political problem; it's a spiritual problem. America's being eaten by cancer, and it makes little difference whether the feds or the states are the carcinogen.

Look, I was born in 1973--in Missouri--the date and place where Roe v. Wade was decided. It made little difference to the babies who would have been in my graduating class whether the state of Missouri or the federal government made the decision that their lives were expendable. The point is that NO ONE should be able to decide that; it shouldn't even be an issue that comes up for debate. Abortion, along with prostitution and drug abuse, is a moral issue. I could NEVER vote for someone who would legalize these crimes against God and humanity, just to fit into his neat little paradigm of "states' rights."

I'm starting to think that people who vote for Ron Paul "on principle" are in reality choosing the principle of "states' rights" over the principles of morality.

Under the Constitution, the federal government has very limited law enforcement duties and powers. All other matters of law are the domain of the States and people. Under the Constitution, if California legalized the murder of unborn babies, that wouldn't mean the other States had to agree or that there would suddenly be a national court case trying to force abortion upon all States.


I understand all of this, John. Our country is messed up. The court system needs a major overhaul. But Ron Paul's solutions aren't the answer to our problems.

As to the politicians in the election now it's very difficult to perceive how anyone could think there would be any signifcant difference between a Newt, Mitt or Barak in the White House. All three are committed to the unconstitutional aspects of the federal government. All three would continue to grow and expand the federal government. All three are comitted to globalization.


I couldn't agree less. (Does this mean that you won't vote in the general election?) There are so many obvious differences between Obama's philosophies and the philosophies of any of the Repub candidates.

How many Republican presidents and Republican congresses do we have to go through, seeing the continuation of America going the wrong direction just as it does with Dems in control, before we realize they are all going the same way?


America is going to continue to go the wrong direction no matter who is President. The widespread legalization of narcotic drugs and prostitution ain't gonna help any.

In my own lifetime we can look from JFK to BHO and see America has steadily gotten worse, not better. Over these years we have had several Republican presidents, none of which stopped the unconstitutional aspects of the federal government nor did anything to restore the Constitution. In face, the federal government grew under each of them.


The answer to America's problems goes much, much deeper than states' rights, or how we are or are not following the Constitution. (I would think you'd know that.)

So, after Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush One and Bush Two, we see America worse now than before. Twenty-eight years of Republican presidents and America still got worse.

Like I said, America's problems are spiritual, not political. No politician--not Mitt, Newt, Ron, or Rick--has the power to turn America from her headlong rush toward disaster. The Constitution simply is not the answer to all of our woes. We are so very far beyond that. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will vote for whoever wins the Republican primary against Obama, because at that point he will be the best man standing. Until then, I'll vote for who is the best man standing today and that man is Ron Paul.

Annie, saying that Ron Paul supports the legalization of prostitution and pot, because he says we should follow the Constitution and let the states decide these things, would be the exact same thing as saying you support the murder of innocent unborn babies because you want the federal government to decide. It wouldn't be right to say that about you, and it wouldn't be right to say that about him. You are mischaracterizing him. He is not in favor of those things; he is in favor of following the Constitution.

If we followed the Constitution, the practice of abortion would be nearly stomped out in our country. States could choose what they wanted to do on the issue. Most people are against the practice, the scientific evidence is overwhelming and the pro-lifers have won the argument. The reason democratic politicians never mention what they believe on gun control or abortion anymore is because they know they've lost the argument. If we followed the Constitution, Roe V. Wade would literally dissolve; there would be no need to "over turn" it. It would be done, caput, and all of a sudden the decision would have to be made by the states, and millions of little Americans would be saved.

On the flip side, there might be some places where pot and prostitution would become legal - like Vegas and New Orleans! The way you describe it, it's as though it would be a wide sweeping thing. Many of the states already have laws on the books against these things, so in many cases nothing would change. It makes perfect sense that most states would keep these things as illegal because they understand the reason the Federal Government did - you allow these things into your state and it becomes a breeding ground for corruption and crime. No state wants that, they're going to keep it out.

But hey, who cares about the lives of millions of little babies, right? Let's just keep on electing useless liberal Republicans that won't do anything to save lives foreign and domestic! Foreign, as in senseless wars, and domestic, as in abortion. And what more, they'll grow the Federal Godverment to the point that it will have the power to tell us what we can and can't say is wrong, just like it already does in Canada! And because there will be so many Bible believers that will refuse to lay down their Bibles and quit preaching against homosexuality, the Federal Godverment will once against try to make pastors license their churches (remember Rolloff?)

Nah, that will never happen. Let's grow the government and find out! Who cares about freedom!

Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will vote for whoever wins the Republican primary against Obama, because at that point he will be the best man standing. Until then, I'll vote for who is the best man standing today and that man is Ron Paul.

Annie, saying that Ron Paul supports the legalization of prostitution and pot, because he says we should follow the Constitution and let the states decide these things, would be the exact same thing as saying you support the murder of innocent unborn babies because you want the federal government to decide. It wouldn't be right to say that about you, and it wouldn't be right to say that about him. You are mischaracterizing him. He is not in favor of those things; he is in favor of following the Constitution.

If we followed the Constitution, the practice of abortion would be nearly stomped out in our country. States could choose what they wanted to do on the issue. Most people are against the practice, the scientific evidence is overwhelming and the pro-lifers have won the argument. The reason democratic politicians never mention what they believe on gun control or abortion anymore is because they know they've lost the argument. If we followed the Constitution, Roe V. Wade would literally dissolve; there would be no need to "over turn" it. It would be done, caput, and all of a sudden the decision would have to be made by the states, and millions of little Americans would be saved.

On the flip side, there might be some places where pot and prostitution would become legal - like Vegas and New Orleans! The way you describe it, it's as though it would be a wide sweeping thing. Many of the states already have laws on the books against these things, so in many cases nothing would change. It makes perfect sense that most states would keep these things as illegal because they understand the reason the Federal Government did - you allow these things into your state and it becomes a breeding ground for corruption and crime. No state wants that, they're going to keep it out.

But hey, who cares about the lives of millions of little babies, right? Let's just keep on electing useless liberal Republicans that won't do anything to save lives foreign and domestic! Foreign, as in senseless wars, and domestic, as in abortion. And what more, they'll grow the Federal Godverment to the point that it will have the power to tell us what we can and can't say is wrong, just like it already does in Canada! And because there will be so many Bible believers that will refuse to lay down their Bibles and quit preaching against homosexuality, the Federal Godverment will once against try to make pastors license their churches (remember Rolloff?)

Nah, that will never happen. Let's grow the government and find out! Who cares about freedom!

It's easy to say all of this, Rick. I don't buy it. (The fact that you've softened Paul's drug legalization to "pot" shows that your enamoredness (word?) with this man has gone too far. He is in favor of legalizing narcotic drugs: cocaine and heroin in particular.) And, I don't "want" the federal government to decide. I am saying that the problem goes far deeper than "who is deciding."

I don't believe that abortion would be stomped out in our country (just like drug abuse hasn't been stomped out simply because it is illegal***). People are selfish, and they do what feels good. This is not a problem with government or following the Constitution. It is a spiritual problem.

RP is not someone I'd ever vote for in a primary election. I don't like what he stands for, and any good ideas he does have he could never implement for so many reasons. I think it's a shame that the only thing RP will accomplish by this primary run is handing the nomination to Romney.

I will say this: if I didn't consider "electability" in my decision about who to vote for, I'd write in a candidate for sure, since none of the official ones reflect my values, principles, or opinions on policy.

***I am not going to take the time to explain why, having said this, I am against the legalization of drugs. I hope no one will take this remark out of context and impute meaning to it that I did not intend.


EDITED TO ADD: I am sensing that those who are voting RP have their minds made up on the issue. And my mind is equally made up not to vote for RP. IOW, we seem to be at an impasse: nothing any of us can say will cause those with the opposing view to change his/her mind. The original question of the thread had to do with voting for the lesser of two evils...So, I've decided not to waste any more of my (or Rick's or John's) time debating about RP, since we're all decided on what we think about him. If the thread gets back on topic, I might pop back in. Otherwise, I'll bow out. Thanks for the discussion, guys. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick, did you know that RPaul is supported by people in the Bilderbergers? A group he has claimed is out to control our money...and yet at least one of them has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of him. This one is supposedly in favor of limited government, but how can he be when he is in favor of controlling all of the money? Conundrum.

He wants to build law-free countries in the ocean...http://www.buzzfeed....-a-bilderberger

RPaul is also of the belief that Mossad was involved in 9/11...hmmm - sounds like something the Saudis promoted, no?

I think I've said this before, but I don't know that RPaul is truly running for himself...I think he may be paving the way for his son, Rand. At this point, I like Rand and could get behind him.

States' rights have been ignored to the point where people don't understand necessarily how they would work. Annie, abortion was not nearly as bad until the federal govt got involved. Making it legal across the board jumped up the total of murdered babies big time. However, if the Constitution were followed correctly, Roe v. Wade would be obsolete - thus putting the power into that hands of the people of each state. Yes, it is a moral issue. But it is an issue that has to be faced. And there needs to be laws about that just as there is about murder. Because that is what abortion is.

Because we have been led to believe for so long that the true power in this country lies in DC, people don't understand the power of nullification. States can nullilfy unconstitutional laws: abortion, obamacare, etc. If Congress acted and removed Roe v. Wade from being law (which SCOTUS has NO authority to declare, anyway), states could then get into the action. There have been states that have passed anti-abortion laws (PA and SD come to mind instantly) and the SCOTUS has declared them to be unconstitutional. I'm sorry, but lack of understanding of state authority stopped those states from letting the SCOTUS know THEY were the unconstitutional ones for mucking in state authority.

Prostitution and drugs can fall under the purview of the federal govt. But only in cases where there is trafficking from state to state, or if prostitutes/drugs are being brought into the country. Otherwise, the authority belongs to the states. And, truly, the idea that ceding authority back to the states could increase sin usage is not accurate. Look into prohibition. The federal govt overstepped its authority with prohibition (and that was also a moral issue...something the federal govt has no business dealing in UNLESS its a trafficking issue) and drinking increased. Big time. Prohibition was repealed, and several states have dry areas, plus they have age laws. Of course, kids who want to drink will find a way, no matter what the law says.

States' rights are very important to consider. Very. The federal govt has overreached itself, and Americans have allowed it - especially Christians. We do not have a theocracy, and we shouldn't want one...if the few (comparatively) Christians on this board can't agree on different aspects of scripture, do you really think any "Christian" congress and POTUS could? And please all the Christians in the country? Nah. And our founders knew that. That is the reason for the documents they gave us. And the reason for states' rights. But, Rick, I just can't get behind RPaul...(although I'd like to see him as Sec. Treasury)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that although I've made it known that I'm voting for Gingrich, I am not blind to his many faults. As I've repeatedly stated, he has baggage just like the rest of the candidates. ...they all have glaring faults.


Ma'am, could you tell us what Rick Santorum's glaring faults are?

Would God have us vote for someone He describes as proud, knowing-nothing and a fool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Rick, I just can't get behind RPaul...(although I'd like to see him as Sec. Treasury)


I see where you're coming from, and I don't think the man is perfect. I'm glad he's of the mindset to let Israel do what Israel wants, but I wish he'd go further than that and still believe in sending them financial aid. "I will bless them that bless thee." I think his policy towards Israel is still better than the other guy's though.

I still stand by what I've said before, he's the best option out there right now. Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Ma'am, could you tell us what Rick Santorum's glaring faults are?

Would God have us vote for someone He describes as proud, knowing-nothing and a fool?

Swathdiver, I'm no expert on politics. My opinions are worth just what you're paying for them (as I've said before in this thread). That said, I'd answer your question like this. Rick Santorum has no glaring "personal" or character faults. His faults (as far as I can tell) seem to be that he would not be an effective leader because he lacks experience and would be in way over his head in Washington (and would never be able to implement any of his good ideas). He would, in short, get run over by the "big dogs" and would be a do-nothing President. In the relatively little I've seen/heard/read about him, I get the idea that he would be a weak leader. Now, is my perception accurate? Maybe; maybe not, but that is the general perception about Santorum, and because of this perception, he would not be electable against Obama. He looks like a schoolboy; the others are definitely "the adults in the room" compared to him. People (in the general election) IMO would not feel confident voting for Santorum. So, nominating Santorum would be handing the election over to the greater evil. (From what I can tell, his opinions on policy are along the same "party line" as most of the other Republicans.)
Again, I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


That you, a man who claims to be a Christian, would call the desire to stave off drug abuse, child neglect, prostitution (and everything else that goes along with these clearly anti-biblical, immoral and just plain wicked behaviors) a "preference" just blows my mind. It reveals a lot about where you're coming from (and makes me a whole lot less likely to listen to your views on this subject).


This statement is meaningless to me. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you clarify? (What level? What things?)


Did I say that following the Constitution is a wicked thing? The ease with which you attempt to spin what I've said makes me wonder if you should be running for President! ;)


What? You cannot be serious, John. The definition of marriage has been left up to each state. It has nothing to do with the federal government. The reason that there is a national effort has nothing to do with the federal government. It has more to do with the courts' abuse of power, combined with the widespread use of technology (resulting in a whole lot more "bandwagons") which are different problems altogether.

The problem is not whether the federal government or the state government decides that same-sex marriage is OK...It's that ANYONE is deciding that it's OK. It's not a political problem; it's a spiritual problem. America's being eaten by cancer, and it makes little difference whether the feds or the states are the carcinogen.

Look, I was born in 1973--in Missouri--the date and place where Roe v. Wade was decided. It made little difference to the babies who would have been in my graduating class whether the state of Missouri or the federal government made the decision that their lives were expendable. The point is that NO ONE should be able to decide that; it shouldn't even be an issue that comes up for debate. Abortion, along with prostitution and drug abuse, is a moral issue. I could NEVER vote for someone who would legalize these crimes against God and humanity, just to fit into his neat little paradigm of "states' rights."

I'm starting to think that people who vote for Ron Paul "on principle" are in reality choosing the principle of "states' rights" over the principles of morality.


I understand all of this, John. Our country is messed up. The court system needs a major overhaul. But Ron Paul's solutions aren't the answer to our problems.


I couldn't agree less. (Does this mean that you won't vote in the general election?) There are so many obvious differences between Obama's philosophies and the philosophies of any of the Repub candidates.


America is going to continue to go the wrong direction no matter who is President. The widespread legalization of narcotic drugs and prostitution ain't gonna help any.


The answer to America's problems goes much, much deeper than states' rights, or how we are or are not following the Constitution. (I would think you'd know that.)


Like I said, America's problems are spiritual, not political. No politician--not Mitt, Newt, Ron, or Rick--has the power to turn America from her headlong rush toward disaster. The Constitution simply is not the answer to all of our woes. We are so very far beyond that.

As a Christian it's my duty to obey the Constittution. Those legal matters you raised are not matters for the federal government under our Constitution, they are matters for the States and people to address. Read the Constitution, the legal aspects under the jurisdiction of the federal government are very limited, all other legal matters are the domain of the States and people.

Why someone would question a persons Christianity because they believe the Constitution should be followed is beyond me.

If there are things someone believes the federal government should address that the Constitution gives no power to do so, there is an amendment process available. Subverting the Constitution in order to do what the is now allowed by the federal government is breaking the law.

No real point going over the rest of the post as it seems you either have no understanding as to the intended function of the Constitution and how the confederation of States was to operate or you are very unclear on the matter.

The fact is, with regards to matters such as abortion, prostitution and other legal matters, the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to make or enforce laws, either pro or con, in these areas. All such matters were left to be determined by the individual States.

If someone doesn't like that fact they could seek to pass an amendment changing this. All other means of bringing the federal government into the law making business, outside the bounds of the Constitution, is illegal.

We know government is wicked and we know that there will always be laws we don't agree with. This is one of the reasons the Founders wanted each State to retain their autonomy in such matters. Better to have Kansas and Oregon legalize abortion themselves than to have all fifty States forced to legalize abortion because the federal government demands it. Nevertheless, with the Constitution being subverted, we have forced abortion upon all fifty States.

Right now several States have laws on their books that would go into effect immediately banning abortion if this nation were restored to following the Constitution.

As Christians we are to work within the legal framework of the nation we reside, not take or promote illegal measures as a means to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I see where you're coming from, and I don't think the man is perfect. I'm glad he's of the mindset to let Israel do what Israel wants, but I wish he'd go further than that and still believe in sending them financial aid. "I will bless them that bless thee." I think his policy towards Israel is still better than the other guy's though.

I still stand by what I've said before, he's the best option out there right now.

Israel themselves have stated that financial aid would be unnecessary if America were not giving their Arab enemies all around them billions of dollars a year in financial aid. Israel has a booming economy and is one of the most hi-tech nations in the world. If all aid were cut off to everyone, Israel would shine bright as her economy, military and technological prowess greatly outdoes any of their Arab neighbors, even combined.

An end to all financial aid and cutting the strings holding Israel back from doing what's in her best interest would be the best blessing America could give to Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Swathdiver, I'm no expert on politics. My opinions are worth just what you're paying for them (as I've said before in this thread). That said, I'd answer your question like this. Rick Santorum has no glaring "personal" or character faults. His faults (as far as I can tell) seem to be that he would not be an effective leader because he lacks experience and would be in way over his head in Washington (and would never be able to implement any of his good ideas). He would, in short, get run over by the "big dogs" and would be a do-nothing President. In the relatively little I've seen/heard/read about him, I get the idea that he would be a weak leader. Now, is my perception accurate? Maybe; maybe not, but that is the general perception about Santorum, and because of this perception, he would not be electable against Obama. He looks like a schoolboy; the others are definitely "the adults in the room" compared to him. People (in the general election) IMO would not feel confident voting for Santorum. So, nominating Santorum would be handing the election over to the greater evil. (From what I can tell, his opinions on policy are along the same "party line" as most of the other Republicans.)
Again, I could be wrong.


Except for the grayed out comments above I think this described Obama four years ago. Where I have grayed out Santorum I believe Obama could be inserted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe very few of you would have agreed with God, calling Moses to be the leader, calling David to be the king, nor calling Jeremiah.

Ex 4:10 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.

No, you would not have seen any leadership material in Moses.


1Sa 16:1 ¶ And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.
1Sa 16:2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD.
1Sa 16:3 And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee.
1Sa 16:4 And Samuel did that which the LORD spake, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, Comest thou peaceably?
1Sa 16:5 And he said, Peaceably: I am come to sacrifice unto the LORD: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice.
1Sa 16:6 ¶ And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD'S anointed is before him.
1Sa 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
1Sa 16:8 Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this.
1Sa 16:9 Then Jesse made Shammah to pass by. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this.
1Sa 16:10 Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these.
1Sa 16:11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.
1Sa 16:12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.
1Sa 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.
1Sa 16:14 ¶ But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

And no, you would never think of making this very young boy king, he was just the opposite of Saul.


Jer 1:6 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child.

And I don't believe you would have approved of Jeremiah either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Israel themselves have stated that financial aid would be unnecessary if America were not giving their Arab enemies all around them billions of dollars a year in financial aid. Israel has a booming economy and is one of the most hi-tech nations in the world. If all aid were cut off to everyone, Israel would shine bright as her economy, military and technological prowess greatly outdoes any of their Arab neighbors, even combined.

An end to all financial aid and cutting the strings holding Israel back from doing what's in her best interest would be the best blessing America could give to Israel.


Isn't that what Mr. Paul wants to stop, stop handing money to those countries, isn't that what many Christians say they want to stop? Yet most of them think he is a joke & lunatic while supporting those that will keep on keeping on handing out our money supporting Islam countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe very few of you would have agreed with God, calling Moses to be the leader, calling David to be the king, nor calling Jeremiah.

Ex 4:10 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.

No, you would not have seen any leadership material in Moses.


1Sa 16:1 ¶ And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.
1Sa 16:2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD.
1Sa 16:3 And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee.
1Sa 16:4 And Samuel did that which the LORD spake, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, Comest thou peaceably?
1Sa 16:5 And he said, Peaceably: I am come to sacrifice unto the LORD: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice.
1Sa 16:6 ¶ And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD'S anointed is before him.
1Sa 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
1Sa 16:8 Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this.
1Sa 16:9 Then Jesse made Shammah to pass by. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this.
1Sa 16:10 Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these.
1Sa 16:11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.
1Sa 16:12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.
1Sa 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.
1Sa 16:14 ¶ But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

And no, you would never think of making this very young boy king, he was just the opposite of Saul.


Jer 1:6 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child.

And I don't believe you would have approved of Jeremiah either.


Jerry, you are including yourself in all those "you" references above aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swathdiver, I'm no expert on politics. My opinions are worth just what you're paying for them (as I've said before in this thread). That said, I'd answer your question like this. Rick Santorum has no glaring "personal" or character faults. His faults (as far as I can tell) seem to be that he would not be an effective leader because he lacks experience... Again, I could be wrong.


Santorum is an experienced politician and has worked in private industry before. He's arguably more conservative then either Gingrich or Romney both politically and in his private life. He's a man of morality, character and honor and is not afraid to tackle unpopular subjects which is why he probably lost re-election. I believe he would govern to the left of Reagan and to the right of George W. Bush. My major beef is the same as the Lord's, he's not Christian but Catholic and therefore very likely unsaved though he professes belief in God and the Savior.

A Christian man in fellowship with God does not have to be an "experienced politician". Surrounding themselves with Godly people and in constant prayer, one will lead and govern a nation just fine.


Ohh, forgot to add that Santorum picked up 3 states tonight in the primaries. Edited by swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Santorum is another big government neo-con, not an actual conservative.

Amazing that in 1960 Christians were rightly warning of the dangers of voting for a Catholic yet here we are five decades later and most Christians are flocking to a Catholic (either Gingrich or Santorum) while all but a few of the rest rally to a Mormon. All the while, Christians failed to give their support to one of the Christian candidates. That's very telling about the state of Christianity in America today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohh, forgot to add that Santorum picked up 3 states tonight in the primaries.

Yeah, I saw that! That's great for him. I tell you what...I'd sure vote for him over Romney and Paul. I've been skeptical of his electability, but I'm open to being convinced. His religion doesn't bother me at all (as far as politics goes). I like his ideas on policy. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swath, just so you know, RSantorum is not all that conservative. He backed Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey...and Specter was PA's Ted Kennedy (politically, not morally) . And he does not have a very good record on gun rights. And, if you are true to things you've said before, his Catholicism is more than a beef to you, it's a deal-breaker...(I do think he would govern to the right of Dubya, but I don't know that he'd be left of RR.)

If Santorum wins the nomination, we will vote for him. I'm glad that he swept things yesterday - I think it put a dent into Romney's "inevitability." But something else I can't shake from my mind: I feel like the America people are being toyed with. I do think things are going on behind the scenes that are controlling a lot of what we "see" in the primaries. One person jumps up, another dives, and then it turns around...I just have the feeling that the "powers that be" are trying to weary us to the point where we will accept Mitt just to get things to stop...and by accepting Mitt, we cede the 2012 election to BO (even George Soros has said that Romney and BO are the same...)

Jerry, if America were a theocracy, your accusations that we wouldn't support Moses might be valid - even though that is a broadbrush that just isn't true. It may be of some people, but it definitely is not of all people. But America is not a theocracy, and people have the right to choose the reasons they vote or don't vote for someone. Lack of experience is a credible reason, and as Dave pointed out, we got BO in 2008, who decidedly lacked experience in anything by rabble-rousing - er, excuse me - community organizing. And not voting at all isn't in the least bit laudatory for a person who strongly proclaims the ills of government...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swath, just so you know, RSantorum is not all that conservative. He backed Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey...and Specter was PA's Ted Kennedy (politically, not morally) . And he does not have a very good record on gun rights. And, if you are true to things you've said before, his Catholicism is more than a beef to you, it's a deal-breaker...(I do think he would govern to the right of Dubya, but I don't know that he'd be left of RR.)

If Santorum wins the nomination, we will vote for him. I'm glad that he swept things yesterday - I think it put a dent into Romney's "inevitability." But something else I can't shake from my mind: I feel like the America people are being toyed with. I do think things are going on behind the scenes that are controlling a lot of what we "see" in the primaries. One person jumps up, another dives, and then it turns around...I just have the feeling that the "powers that be" are trying to weary us to the point where we will accept Mitt just to get things to stop...and by accepting Mitt, we cede the 2012 election to BO (even George Soros has said that Romney and BO are the same...)

Jerry, if America were a theocracy, your accusations that we wouldn't support Moses might be valid - even though that is a broadbrush that just isn't true. It may be of some people, but it definitely is not of all people. But America is not a theocracy, and people have the right to choose the reasons they vote or don't vote for someone. Lack of experience is a credible reason, and as Dave pointed out, we got BO in 2008, who decidedly lacked experience in anything by rabble-rousing - er, excuse me - community organizing. And not voting at all isn't in the least bit laudatory for a person who strongly proclaims the ills of government...


Wasn't Specter a defector (Specter the Defector) after the Repubs voted him in he turned Demo-liberal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Wasn't Specter a defector (Specter the Defector) after the Repubs voted him in he turned Demo-liberal?

When Specter's liberalism finally became too much even for those who had voted him into office for years, he switched from Repub to Dem as his only hope of staying in congress. Thankfully, it didn't work, but also thankfully, we have the records of those supposed conservatives who supported the liberal Specter all those years showing their real loyalty to the Repub Party and not to conservatism or any so-called values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason the polls and primaries are jumping around like ping-pong balls is because the base can't decide if they want to vote on principle or temporary perceived electability.

Those voters who claim to be Christian, conservative or "values voters", were unwilling to look at the 9 or so Repubs who were originally in the race and get solidly behind one of them. Now they are left with "choices" they don't like, not to mention weak choices, and it's greatly their own fault.

Had these core Republicans got behind one candidate early on, whether Bachmann, Paul, Perry or another, and gave them full support from beginning to end, then one of them would likely either be the nominee by now or well on their way to being the nominee.

As it is, once again they squandered their chance to do this. By withholding their support they allowed others to fund the wimpier candidates while allowing the others to go unfunded and unable to compete.

Now the core Republicans are faced with a proven failure most in his own Party don't even care for, a flip-flopper who will say whatever he thinks necessary to get elected, another big government politicians, and one who is too much like the Founders to suit their modern, enlightened tastes.

So, most will rule Ron Paul out without any signficant consideration or thought, which leaves them stuck between two Catholics and a Mormon, all three of which are big government and globalization supporters with no real love of the Constitution and no intention of keeping any oath they may take to the same.

Is it any wonder voters in the different States are not united?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 20 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...