Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Monergist, Oct 27, 2004.
NEWS ARTICLE LINK
Pretty much speaks for itself.
He is still the lesser of two evils!
Would you vote for Nero or Caligula as "The Lesser of Two Evils?"
How about Hitler or Stalin as "The Lesser of Two Evils?"
I understand the "lesser evil" argument, even though I disagree with it. But the smiley face in your post suggests that you will not only vote for him, but do so happily. That, to me, does not seem consistent with a lesser evil.
That is something that I have heard from many folks, not just you, and it puzzles me.
Could I ask for you to elaborate on your attitude towards the presidency of Mr. Bush?
First of all, my smiley face was to show that I am not being mean spirited with my post.
But now that you mention it, I WILL gladly vote for Bush. There is no other option for me. I would like to see another independent party one day that is more along the lines of what I believe is best for our country. But we both know that without $$$, there's most likely not going to be an independent President.
From what I have observed in the debates and on the news, Kerry is not genuine. I will NOT vote for a baby killer (remember the debate where he said we should fund abortions GLOBALLY?? Whats up with that??)
Also, Kerry has continually hammered the fact that Bush's tax relief is for the weathy. We have personally benefitted from Bush's tax reform and we are FAR from wealthy. If making 30,ooo a year is wealthy, I'd hate to see the poor.
I am sure you will blast me, but go ahead if it makes you feel better. You won't change my vote, and I wouldnt try to change yours. Thats why I hardly get into the political debates on this board.
Of course, no one can please all the people all the time, but I worry about my kid's futures if Kerry is elected.
1. The fact that Bush is wrong (and he is grossly wrong on this point) does not mean that he is a bad choice for president. He may be ... but not because of this. He is a politician, not a theologian, for which we can all be thankful.
2. The fact that Bush is wrong on this does not mean that he himself is unsaved. He may simply be (and probably is) untaught. If someone knew the remifications of their statement and persisted in it, then we would probably have fruit that shows he is not truly following Christ. But one need not go far on this board to witness numerous theological errors on many different points.
To Jonathan ... your comparison about the lesser of two evils is extremely out of place. No one here is suggesting that anyone vote for the likes of those two sets of choices. Arguing from the extremes is not a good method of debate, since the extremes are rarely, if ever, in play. We all wish there were better choices. There are not. So we are left to make a wise choice about the future of this country.
Thank yo for being a voice of reason, Larry.
JGrubbs, I dont believe voting was even an option for those creeps.
What are you doing in the Politics forum, then?
So then you don't think Bush is a lesser evil, but think he's a good president?
No, but it doesn't keep him from making inappropriate comparisons.
Jonathan is demonstrating a principle. The principle is that it is not always acceptable to favor one option simply because there is a worse one.
The whole arguement based on point of view, and assumptions allowed for.
We know there is only one true God. Muslims would say they know that too. So in that sense, we do worship the same God (since there is only one).
However, are all of the things we think we "know" and "believe" about Him actually true in the same absolute sense? We would say, "Yes!" And so would a Muslim. Now while the first set of statements made by both groups is true in the absolute sense, the second cannot be, since the set of attributes and beliefs coming from both sides are contradictory.
This whole scenario only works if you allow for the seperation of the two questions. What Bush is saying does.
You could argue, however, that they cannot be separated, that one's perception of and beliefs about God cannot be separated from the answer to the question, "Is there only one true God?" If that assumption is allowed for, then one cannot say we worship the same God.
Notice Bush did come out and say which "route of getting to the Almighty" he thought was correct. He said "I am on my personal walk," which to me subtly implies that he thinks the Christian "route" is the correct one, since he has chosen to follow it.
So you think I should note vote and let others make the decision for me?? No thanks.
Yes, I do think Bush is a good president. Do I wish there were more choices for pres.? Sure. I havent agreed 100% with everything he does, and I would wager that you dont agree 100% with Kerry. Or at least you wouldnt admit it if you did.
And last time I checked, this is still a free country and I'll go anywhere I please on this board. I read this forum daily and sometimes post, but just b/c I havent tied up with you here before doesnt mean I shouldnt be here.
You tell 'em tater!
man, it seems like some of you folks are just lying in wait to pounce on someone.
Sorry, TaterTot, I was thinking through my post while all of that nasty off-topic stuff was going on. I agree with you.
I think that is a totally valid principle. I would highlight the word "always." It is not always acceptable to favor one simply becuase there is a worse one available. However, sometimes, it is not only acceptable ... it is wise to favor one candidate, simply because there is a worse possibility.
Numerous examples can be put forth.
Would you prefer to have a leg amputated, or die from gangrene? Both are bad options ... but one is worse than the other to be sure. And most, if not all, will choose the lesser evil. OF course, we would love to choose neither ... let's just choose to be healed.
Would you prefer to kill a man or let him kill your family? We would all choose the former, wishing that we didn't have either.
When driving, would you rather run your car into a lightpost or hit a pedestrian who wandered out into the road because he didn't see you? Neither is good ... but one is certainly better.
In politics, would you rather choose someone whom you agree with 50% of the time, or someone you agree with 10% (or less) of the time.
To the last you will quickly respond that there is a better choice. But in each of hte above cases, there is a better choice. It is simply unrealistic. Yes, you could pray and hope that God miracously intervenes to spare your leg and life, to cause the killer to suddenly fall down and repent, to cause the pedestrian to turn and run out of the way. All are possible ... but none are realistic means of addressing life situations. The existence of an unviable choice does not make that choice a wise choice.
So, while Jonathan's principle is certainly valid, it is just as certainly not universal.
My comment about not being here was joking, perhaps a jab at myself more than anything. I thought the grin icon would indicate that. I am sorry that I was not clear, and that it offended you. I hope you stay around for an honest discussion.
I hope that none of my other comments or questions were offensive toward you, I thought that they were clear and politely worded.
Of course I can't tell you how to vote. But this is a discussion board, and I was hoping to discuss it...I did have a sincere interest, much of this perplexes me.
Can we get back on topic?