1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

If You Say You Get It But Do Nothing Then You Do Not Get It

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by KenH, May 31, 2004.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken, that is why I asked. I didn't know.

    Which brings up a second question. When you have a chance to make a difference, why wouldn't you be registered in the party in order to make that difference? To me, that is the problem. People want to complain but they don't want to get their hands dirty. It is not a problem solely for politics. It is a problem in the church ... everyone thinks we ought to be growing and reachign people ... but no one wants to actually do it. They just want to complain about everyone who is not doing it. And in the meantime, they are not contributing anything meaningful in terms of solutions. I have a simple philosophy: If you want to come to me and complain about something, bring a workable solution with you. The problem as I see it, is that the CP'ers want to complain loudly, but they don't have a workable solution. Their solution is "Vote for Peroutka ... he will lose by multiplied millions but at least you shout into the hurricane." To me, I would send that person back to the drawing board and say "Try again. I am with you as to the problem, but the solution is not workable."

    People think they are making a statement by not registering. Well, they are ... and the loud resounding statement is that Arlen Specter, rather than Jim Toomey is now the Republican nominee. The disaster of the PA primary is prima facie evidence that the CP mindset is misguided and damaging to the end for which we are working. The Republicans could have had a prolife senator from Pennsylvania. They could have had someone who is the antithesis of everything they hate about Specter, if only they had thought past the immediate moment, if they had seen the long term bigger picture and been willing to get in a work for it. If they had been registered and voting, there is a strong possibility that Specter would have been sent packing. Of course then, the CP'ers couldn't complain about it. And perhaps, like the "Demopublicans," having the issue to trumpet about is a lot more beneficial than having the solution.

    Who knows ... I am still interested in the numbers for the CP in Pennsylvania.

    Question for our Pennsylvania friends, particularly, PJ: If you knew that your vote would have been the difference between Toomey and Specter, would you have registered as a Republican to vote for Toomey?
     
  2. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you register as a Democrat to start voting for more conservative Democrats to "try to make a difference"? The GOP of today is made up of the neo-cons who were the liberals of yesterday. Real conservatives are ignored in today's GOP.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, because the "conservative Dems" are less conservative than Jim Toomey. If I were in PA, I would have voted for Toomey because he was the man for the job, so far as I know. I certainly wouldn't have stayed home.

    Additionally, voting for a single democrat is about control of the legislature, which is important in which legislation gets to teh floor. Additionally, the comparison between Repubs and Dems is apples and oranges compared to the Repubs and CP. In the first, you have two viable parties. In the last, you have one viable party and one that is not viable. There is a huge difference.

    That is why the comparison is invalid. The GOP is not made up of liberals of yesterday. They are, as a whole, more liberal than those of years ago, but they are certainly not the liberals of yesterday.

    If the only option in my state was a conservative pro life dem and a liberal dem, I would consider voting democrat to help someone who is closer to me get elected. I am not tied to political parties. I am tied to the long term issues that can be realistically accomplished.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But that still didn't answer my question, BTW. What's your answer??
     
  5. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which question? If I lived in PA and were a registered Republican I would have voted for Toomey. If I lived in PA and were a registered Constitutionalist I would have supported Toomey's campaign financially and helped pass out flyers, etc. as many CP voters did this year.

    I don't know the current number of CP members in PA, but I think there were a little over 14,000 CP voters in PA who voted for Howard Phillips in 2000.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The bottom line is that the Republican Party in Pennsylvania failed to elect a conservative to run for the U.S. Senate this year. What you are saying, Pastor Larry, is that the Republican Party is so liberal in Pennsylvania that a conservative can win in a Republican primary only if helped by non-Republicans.
     
  7. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wouldn't it make more sense for conservatives in the Republican party go to a conservative party, instead of imploring conservatives from a different party to come and help them?

    Maybe, if enough republicans made it clear that they were through with being taken for granted, the party would respond.

    If not, there are certainly enough conservatives to make a perfectly good party elsewhere, which would quickly supplant the liberal Republican party.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Ken and Galatian, what I am saying is that if the conservatives had not abandoned the Republican party for the Constitution party, there may have been enough votes for the Republicans to elect a conservative ... IF the conservatives would stand up and let their voice be heard, they coudl register their discontent. In PA, had the conservative vote showed up, Bush would have been supporting the loser. That is how you send a message to say we are not going to be taken for granted. By not showing up, you give up your voice ...
     
  9. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, the conservatives did NOT abandoned the Republican party, the GOP abandoned the conservatives before I was old enough to vote. The RNC has not supported a conservative presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan. There have been some conservatives in the presidential primaries, but they were ignored by the Republican leadership.

    If Toomey would have won in the primary but lost in the general election the conservatives would have been accused by Bush and the rest of the GOP leadership of not being willing to compromise and by doing so helping the the Democrat candidate win against Toomey in November.

    Pastor Larry, this is a serious question...How far would the Republican party have to move to the left before you would stop supporting them? What if they removed the pro-life issue from the platform? There are some within the party that are calling for this to happen.

    Bush and Rove removed many other conservative principles from the party platform in 2000, and then did a oneighty on those issues, where the GOP had previously called for programs to be abolished, the new "compassionate conservatives" increased the funding to those programs.
     
  10. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    NetPublicist is right. What Bush wants is for conservatives to stay with him. He wants their votes, and then he wants them to go away and let him do his liberal thing.

    He thinks you're stupid enough to do that.

    Is he right?
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, not stupid enough to do that. But neither asm I stupid enough to vote for someone who has no chance, at the price of a John Kerry president. It is all about common sense. You can vote for someone guaranteed to fail who will allow a radical pro abortion president who has promised to stack the courts with pro abortion judges. Or you can vote for someone who may give the unborn a chance. To me, that is an easy choice ... I can't understand why it is not for others.
     
  12. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, Bush has not proven that he will give the unborn a chance. Second , as I said before, we survived eight years of Bill Clinton, I think we can survive 4 years of John Kerry. Fouth, as far as the economy goes, I don't know if my children and grandchildren can afford another four years of Bush's spending and federal growth. If we continue the growth at the current rate Bush will have passed FDR and be the all time biggest spendind president in US history.

    There are many things that Kerry would love to do that would be bad for America, but with a GOP controled Congress I believe we will have four years of gridlock. The GOP Congress has shown us that they aren't willing to say no to Bush's un-conservative policies, many of which have had the support of liberals from both of the major parties in Congress.
     
  13. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same here. Armchair activists can't understand that.
     
  14. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am a registered Republican. Many CP supporters in PA are, since we have closed primaries. I voted for Toomey, as did many CP supporters, but the liberal Bush wing of the GOP was more than we could overcome. If you can be proud to support these charlatans, you have a pretty low standard.
     
  15. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is nearing that point, I think. If you look at Bush's official campaign website, it is not listed as an issue in the agenda section where issues are laid out. That's the guy that some here are supporting.
     
  16. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    He has demonstrated that he will by virtue of his nominees for the bench. If you look at the reason they are being held up, it is in many cases, abortion. You also have his statement that he will, vs the statement of Kerry that he won't. So say, for instance that 50% of Bush's appointees are pro life ... That is 50% more than Kerry's will be. AGain, I am not sure how that doesn't make sense.

    Kerry will not be any better. So again, it comes down to morality ...
     
  18. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is nearing that point, I think. If you look at Bush's official campaign website, it is not listed as an issue in the agenda section where issues are laid out. That's the guy that some here are supporting. </font>[/QUOTE]In 2000 pro-choice Republican woman legislators recently held a press conference to announce their latest effort to remove the pro-life plank from the party platform.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good for you ...

    I am not proud to support these charlatans ... but I cannot shirk my civic duty by voting for a no show ...

    You are lying again. I already answered this on the first post of this page. You should have read it before you said something that is not true. And not only did you lie, you launched a personal attack ... Not good ...
     
  20. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kerry will not be any better. So again, it comes down to morality ... </font>[/QUOTE]There was an average annual growth rate of 2.4% during Clinton's eight years, compared to an average of 11.8% during Bush's first three.

    SOURCE

    I don't think a GOP Congress will let Kerry spend what he wants, just like they didn't let Clinton. So with Kerry it would be better as far as government growth and federal spending are concerned.

    Many neo-cons say that Bush's spending is due to the "War on Terror", but national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

    SORUCE

    I will say Bush would win over Kerry in my book if it were just about morality, but this election is more than just morality, and more than just who will be in power for the next four years. Both major parties have gotten so hungry for power, that they have forgotten why they are supposed to be in power.
     
Loading...