If today was election day...

[speerjp1]

No matter who you vote for you are voting for evil of some kind. Only God is perfect and has no evil in him.

Exactly my point: As Christians we KNOW that there is evil present in all humanity. No matter who we vote for, we get some level of evil.

My point is that I've decided to stop voting for the "lesser of two" when there is a third or fourth candidate that is the best on the ballot.

As for Perot, his "stealing" the election from Bush also led to the Conservative Republican takeover of congress a couple of years later. In other words, they got the message. That congress did more good for our country than both Bush's put together, and at least they fought against Clinton/Gore.

[Anon]

With all due respect, a lot of folks who are "voting their conscience" have done a lot to make sure others are aware of the 3rd party issues. Perhaps we can't help that there aren't all that many out there that will do it. In some peoples minds and hearts "voting your conscience" means voting in the fear of the Lord and the things he tells us to live by in His Word.

If Obama gets in it will be bad. If McCain gets in it will be bad. Some people can't make themselves vote for someone they really believe will bring their nation to it's knees, even if it means someone else will get in and do the same. Before God, they just can't compromise what they believe! I think one should always vote their conscience...no matter who gets in or what happens they did what they believed was right.

I think that goes for everyone. Those voting for 3rd party or those voting for McCain. If you can do what you're doing before God and feel that's really what he'd have you do...then do it with all your heart.

I see what you are saying...its not how I'm voting, but I do see where you are coming from.

I'm about to go buy a house so McCain can bail out my mortgage LOL (Admittedly a poor attempt by him last night to steal some of Obama's welfare thunder. *sigh*)

[joyfulpraise93]

I see what you are saying...its not how I'm voting, but I do see where you are coming from.

I'm about to go buy a house so McCain can bail out my mortgage LOL (Admittedly a poor attempt by him last night to steal some of Obama's welfare thunder. *sigh*)

LOL *sigh* indeed

My mom called me this morning to ask if I watched the debate. She said it was just more political jumbo and barbs back and forth. It's so pathetic.

[Anon]

I can agree with "pathetic"....

[HappyChristian]

A fuller explanation as to one of the biggest reasons we will vote against Obama by voting for McCain:

The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled. Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor. Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting. Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not. So, O'Malley -- a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee -- drafted legislation. In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a "'person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'" The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois," O'Malley told me. The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama. "Nobody else said anything," O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this. "Sen. O'Malley," Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb." Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) "alive" and 3) "outside the womb." He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human? "And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Obama continued. Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) "properly cared for." "Is that correct?" Obama asked O'Malley. O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "(T)his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said O'Malley. But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings -- to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving -- to these specific children of God, Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all. To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus." By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb." "No. 1," said Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term." Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks. Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute." For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged Obama in a colloquy every American should read.

http://townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJ ... should_see

[Anon]

Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

Ummmm YEAH!!!!!

Amazingly enough, he speaks truth. He is afraid of the abortion survivors. Because it means less money for HIM.

[Annie]

Yes, I think you hit it, Annie. The problem with that, though, is that these third party candidates can pull away enough voters so that Obama will get in.

Yes, that's how these people will make their point. Their message is, "The Democrats will continue to win unless you, Republican party, listen to us and nominate someone conservative who is 'perfect' as we define it." This message is doomed to failure, IMO. The number of true conservatives is dwindling; things aren't the same as they were in the Reagan/Bush era.

If, however, McCain got in, there would be a chance for Palin to then run. I know, horrors at the thought of a woman president. But it could just be that it's time for a "Deborah" in the land!

I would have little difficulty voting for a woman president. But I don't think Palin is electable. IMO, the Democrats (most likely Hillary) would win that contest hands down. Of course, the political landscape could look very different in four years, depending on who is elected this term, and how that person does in office.

[Anon]

I think if McCain gets in, Palin would not get a Presidency. But if Obama gets in, and people get mad, Palin has a good shot at it.

I definitely see a Palin-Hillary nom in four years....

[deafnva77]

A fuller explanation as to one of the biggest reasons we will vote against Obama by voting for McCain:

The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled. Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor. Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting. Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not. So, O'Malley -- a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee -- drafted legislation. In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a "'person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'" The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois," O'Malley told me. The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama. "Nobody else said anything," O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this. "Sen. O'Malley," Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb." Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) "alive" and 3) "outside the womb." He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human? "And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Obama continued. Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) "properly cared for." "Is that correct?" Obama asked O'Malley. O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "(T)his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said O'Malley. But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings -- to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving -- to these specific children of God, Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all. To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus." By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb." "No. 1," said Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term." Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks. Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute." For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged Obama in a colloquy every American should read.

http://townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJ ... should_see

you know why they won't give babies painkiller before abortion? because it would define them as a person. So they have to perform abortions without painkiller. Sigh...The things people do in order to keep abortion legal.

[joyfulpraise93]

I think if McCain gets in, Palin would not get a Presidency. But if Obama gets in, and people get mad, Palin has a good shot at it.

I definitely see a Palin-Hillary nom in four years....

I cringe at the thought of that.

[deafnva77]

I cringe at the thought of that.

unless McCain run for 2nd term

[joyfulpraise93]

unless McCain run for 2nd term

ahhh! :hide

[Anon]

I will be shocked if McCain even runs a first, honestly.

I would vote for Palin in 2012, unless a third party candidate actually showed themselves worthy of a larger following and a fighting chance to win or at least seriously mess up the election.

Palin is the most conservative main party candidate out there. When they revealed all the candidates for this election, I was like "Is that it????"

It's like a choice of eating liver, tongue, heart, sushi, or collard greens for dinner. You hold your nose and pick the one that you think might not make you vomit. :lol:

[Annie]

I think if McCain gets in, Palin would not get a Presidency. But if Obama gets in, and people get mad, Palin has a good shot at it.

I definitely see a Palin-Hillary nom in four years....

Could be...We'll see. My personal opinion is that the best-case scenario for Hillary is a McCain win. It is the general opinion that McCain would not run for a second term, leaving Palin as the candidate--or not. Hillary would tear Palin to shreds. If Obama wins, Palin would not get the Republican nomination in '12. The only way she'd have a chance to be the Republican candidate for president is on McCain's coattails.

[Anon]

Hmmm no I think Palin has made enough name for herself that she can run on her own merit, even after Obama. Most conservatives prefer her to McCain at this point.