Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by mandym, Jan 23, 2012.
It's amazing, isn't it, that there are those that would throw their votes away on a third party (that will never get elected), instead of voting for someone that isn't as rabidly pro-abortion as Obama.
Amazing, isn't it - that any believer could support any candidate who allows for infanticide out of pragmatism? 'Maybe he won't kill quite as many' is terribly poor logic.
I wonder if this president it really considering the right of his daughters to kill his grandchildren?
I didn't click on the link. The quote was sick enough.
Yes, it is amazing how any believer could knowingly through their vote away and allow someone to be elected that they know will kill more children.
Here's an example for you. Two gunman are at your house. One has 2 bullets in his gun, the other has 4. You are only going to be able to take one of them out before the other goes in after your family. (Pretend that the rules, if there were some, stipulate the gunmen can only kill people by shooting them). Would you take out the guy that can kill 4 family members, or the one that can kill 2?
I guess some of you would just run to the corner and hide, like a coward.
So how do I know which gun has 2 bullets, which has 4, and what rules they have to play by.
Not the best analogy.
I won't vote for any candidate who supports the legal killing of children. I could not live with that on my hands.
While you and others play holier than thou, myself and other responsible people will be doing our best to limit the number of abortions, all while we work to eliminate abortion.
How does one limit abortions by voting for people who support them?
As long as logic puzzles have been introduced into this thread . . . You are challenged to a pistol duel by two people. You win the first chance to select your first target. One of your opponents hits his target 90% of the time. The other, 50%. Whom should you aim at?
>How does one limit abortions by voting for people who support them?
BUT YOUR purpose in limiting abortions is to limit American deaths, yes? You should vote for the candidate who will bring home the troops, defend our national borders, and stay out of foreign wars.
Candidate A believes in unrestricted abortions. Lets say that allows for 10 million dead children a year.
Candidate B believes in some restrictions. Lets say that allows for 5 million dead children a year.
Candidate C believes all abortion is murder and should be outlawed.
Which one do you vote for? It's pretty simple really.
No, it isn't that simple. You need to add "Candidate C has a 0% chance of being elected."
Obama, and the left wing, support the killing of innocent babies, but they protest the capital punishment of baby killers....go figure.
And who decides that? If every pro-life American voted for the same pro-life candidate he/she would split the pro-death vote and finally break up the monopoly of death the two major parties hold.
Or, we can just keep voting for the supposed lesser of two evils who still believes it is okay to kill children.
matt, so do we go to a theoretical election in Nazi Germany and vote for Hitler who will gas everyone whom he doesn't deem superior, his opponent who will "only" gas all the Jews, or do we stand up and say "Enough! We will not stand for murder - period. We are serious. Give us someone who believes in life!"
Anyway, apologies for getting caught up in the derail. That was wrong of me.
As a grandfather I have a very hard time with a man who celebrates the right, even the right of his daughters, to kill his grandchildren.
I understand. and exactly!:thumbs:
Let me know when you organize all the pro-life Americans to vote for the same pro-life candidate, ok?
Let me know when you organize everyone to stand up all together and at the same time, ok?
Until then I'll continue to do the responsible and practical thing.