Would I vote for Bush Now

The lesser of two evils is always going to be the best choice regardless of party reform or not. Even if both parties became almost similar on abortion and gay rights, there are always going to be differences.

 

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

yes it is, and I for one thank you for previously bringing this to my attention. I admit that I had always taught and believed in the lesser evil and the greater good. After much prayer from our previous discussion I can safely say I see that evil will always be evil and good will always be good. The extent is not really relevant.

I thank you my Brother... :thumbs:

 

The lesser of two evils is an expression only. It means the one who does the least damage. Since no human is perfect, this applies to everyone, as there is never a perfect candidate.

 

Since the Bible states nobody is "good", your stance falls on it's face.

 

Apples and oranges (again). Our spiritual condition, which is what your quote refers to, has nothing to do with a difference between liberal and conservative. It takes a microscope to see the difference between Bush and a liberal. A blind man can see the difference between Bush and a conservative.

Our sinful state, common to all of us, has nothing to do with this.

 

Our sinnful state has everything to do with everything.

 

When a sinless leader is nominated, no doubt everyone on this board would vote for him or her. You have to work in the framework of this world.

 

It's not apples and oranges. Many of the issues involving liberals and conservatives fall into the godless or God honoring camp. "Lesser of two evils" is voting to eliminate as many of the "godless" issues as we possibly can.

 

I agree that a little evil is eliminated by voting one major party over another. The point here is that if we had two new parties interested in serving the American people, or, as you suggested, if possible, reform the existing parties, much more evil would be eliminated. Where we differ I believe is that it would be next to impossible to reform the present parties, they are so permeated with evil ways.

 

Kind of apples and oranges...

1. I didn't say anybody or nobody was good or evil. I said there is good and evil and good is always good and eveil is always evil. You added the nobody, not me.

2. Your use is leaning back towards conservatives being Godly while Liberals bing evil. The only thing that comes close to supporting this position is most conservatives are pro-life. However, you have to subdivide the word pro-life since they only seem to defend and care about the unborn. There are far more atrocities and life being lost that doesn't seem to be considered pro-life. This means they are selectively pro-life and not really pro-life. This means their support for life isn't all that biblical since God never made distinctions seperating the unborn from the been born.

 

You really should abandon this lie.

 

Oh, a lie???

I haven't seen anyone passionate about any murder but that of the unborn. I can look for more threads but I doubt if I find one. I've raised the point before and was told the unborn can't defend themselves which is why we defend them. Now I don't see that distinction in the Bible but I'm sure it's biblical.

 

It really isn't a lie. People who are outraged over abortions should also be outraged over the deaths of innocent people in wars and outraged over the deaths of innocent people executed for crimes they did not permit. If you are pro-life then be pro-life and not selective-pro-life ... which is also selective-pro-death.

 

A bromide is a bromide, no matter who says it.

Red herring, one that is unconscionable to accuse. If this stands, then so does the accusation that those who support Obama are pro-death to innocent babies, even though they give lip services to supporting innocent life protection in war zones. Or those who have no problem supporting candidates who support abortion but will not support a candidate who supports execution of unrepentant capital criminals. Guilt by association and well-poisioning works both ways.

It is folly for all. But then again, that's about the norm around here thanks to the hacks.

 

I voted for him twice. I would not change my votes given who the choices were in 2000 and 2004. If he were to be on the ballot this time, I would still have voted for who I voted for (3rd party candidate) because I cannot stomach what Obama/Bush have done/would do to our Constitution.

 

Compared with Obama I would have no choice but to vote again for Bush.