Brown Was the Lessor of Two Evils... Really!

Which is the lesser of two evils?

Scott Brown who has worked to limit and restrict abortions?

Or a Christian who voted for Obama who true to his word increased Federal funding of overseas abortions?

 

Targus :no: [ ....there ought to be a 'smilie' with a frown, shaking his head 'no']

????

This isn't like you.

 

So MARCIA, how would you have voted in Mass.?

.....And how would your vote make a difference?

Or are you saying it is better not to vote at all?

 

Your logic is faulty. Regardless of whether Brown won or lost the person replacing Kennedy would have been pro abortion.

 

If the election of Brown ensures the defeat of the health care bill it will also ensure that more Taxpayer money will not go to funding abortions. Although never mentioned Taxpayer money goes to fund the largest provider of abortions in the country, Planned Parenthood!

 

Several things are true....
And are true no matter who agrees with what or judges whom:

All three candidates support abortion in Mass.
A change of party in this particular posistion does not change the majority in the Senate who can still pass health care reform.
When the people have free elections and, for whatever reason, no one [righteous, honest, moral], is found to run and all the candidates could be said to be promoting evil.... then instead of rejoicing over a candidate, the righteous who go to vote have reason to weep because no man is standing in the gap.

-----------------------------
Politicians, typically, do lie...... so, until one is tried and proven, we have no assurance that anyone filling this position is any different: Therefore the best made promises and the best run campaign don't mean the voters will get what was promised in the fever of the campaign.

I already have reason to believe SB is a flip on health care 'now that he's post campaign.

 

We don't know the long term effect yet but we can certainly measure what has happened since Brown was elected and it is certainly something to be thankful about. The right choice was made for the time. We sure do need to advance more Godly men as candidates for office so that our choices can be even better.

Never the less, we have to work with what we have before us. We have to know that the majority of voters are most likely not believers and motivated towards all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons as it is for the nature of all unsaved men.

The guard of common morality and decency based on Christian principles is being eroded. We can not give up on it because we don't have perfect choices.

It's not a compromise of prinicples to make a choice between candidates when one clearly moves the balance of power towards more favorable results. It is not an endorsement of every single belief that person may have.

I doubt there is such a candidate in any race at the moment. Given that are you suggesting we should stay home and let everyone else decide? Such a move would be irresponsible unless, perhaps, all the choices were so evil that there was no hope whatsoever of any element of good in the outcome.

God is in control and to serve His purposes. Is His purpose to show us how close we are to loosing the great blessing of freedom we have enjoyed so long by the growth and mismangement of our government? Is He giving us brief reprives to repent and chance our ways? The Bible shows He is patient and long suffering with His people. I cannot say for certain but it seems to me He is sending us many signs of the fragile nature of our liberty and reminders that we, as a nation, are drifting away for open acknowledge that He is both the creator and the sustainer of all that we have.

Let's be thankful for every small step and pray they may lead to larger steps.

 

I already posted where these candidates stood on issues:

The voting choices were between Coakley, Kennedy, and Brown.

Marcia,
Are you suggesting that if you were a voter in Mass. you would not have voted?
Or who would have been your choice? And what would have been the reasons for your choice.

You live much closer to where the campaign was run, so I'm assuming you had more information to go on than folks such as myself who at best could only follow on the internet. .....And frankly, from my pov, without being a resident and voter in that state.... I wasn't interested enough in that election more than hoping the people would vote against affirming the course of this present administration.

...... If the election was more local for me... I'd be concerned for more reasons than change..... but at this distance I could not find enough difference between any of the candidates on the moral issues to get enthused.... and Kennedy didn't give enough information on his site concerning income tax and sales tax for me to determine how he would fund the retireing of our current debt even if all unconstitional agencies and continued expencitures and committments could be wiped out.

I'm still hoping for your answer.

How would you have voted and why?
Or do you recommend not voting?

 

Well, I guess there are many willing to cast stones of judgement within the family of BB but unable or unwilling to commit themselves as to how they would have voted or give any guidance to edify the rest of us..... who will be involved in similar decisions in the near future.

:tear:

 

Well???

I first posted this question on the 25th. It's good I didn't hold my breath.

If the shoe was on the other foot..... there'd proably be another post within 4 hours not recognizing the number of views...... but badgering about why no one responded..... reckon?????

:tonofbricks:

 

It's possible that the object of your question has been occupied otherwise for a few days - possible, I say!

I have seen times in the past when I would make some controversial post and then be out of town for several days & when I come back that particular thread may have been so old ( I generally just select "today's posts") when I open the BB, that I would not see a question that was addressed to me.

Many times I would find it later if I were just looking at the posts I had made and then find the question.

Have no idea if tis is the case here or not, but you can "bump" the thread after a couple of days to preclude that problem should you so desire!

'Course I have seen a poster questioned and they simply ignore the post since they don't want to answer.

There are a couple on here that are famous for this tactic.:BangHead: You would never know that anybody ever asked them anything; but they are hot & heavy to chastise the remainder if 12 hours go by without an answer when they were doing the asking.

Point being, if it's not just a break in the on-line time responsible for a no-answer so far, then you may never get an answer!!

 

Bump...bump.

 

Bump Bump.