Read More about dishonest attacks…
Read More about dishonest attacks…
Must listen audio:
Don’t have time to watch the whole thing? Here it is in 60 seconds.
I hate hearing about Tom Cruise. However, posting this clip was unavoidable…
“I do care so very very very much.”
Are you sure you got enough “verys” in there?
Actually, the question you should be asking is: Who will the President appoint to the supreme court?
Many “Evangelicals” (I use quotes because I feel like the term has become nothing more than a meaningless label) would not vote for a presidential candidate who is personally “Pro-Choice” regardless of any other aspects of their platform. I think this is a huge, huge mistake. For instance, it seems that much of the opposition to Rudy Giuliani, and subsequent support for Mike Huckabee revolves solely around him being 1) a Christian, 2) Pro-Life, 3) and against Gay Marriage (supposedly things that Rudy is against or not as strong about).
My friends and fellow Christians, please consider this line of thinking as you make a decision about this issue:
Likely 99% of “Evangelicals” are pro-choice on Adultery.
Does this mean that you are pro-Adultery? No. Does this mean that you don’t think Adultery is a sin? No. What this simply means, is that you don’t believe people should be arrested for committing Adultery.
Giuliani’s stance on Abortion is very similar. He is saying that he isn’t prepared to criminalize people for having an Abortion, but he does wish to stop it in any way that he can (see the first sentence of this post). And how can he do that? By appointing strict constructionist judges (something he has adamantly stated again and again). The confusion comes from the fact that often people equate someone who is Pro-Choice on abortion, as someone who is defending the morality of abortion. Certainly, there are many people out there that do, in fact, defend the morality of abortion. This is clearly not Giuliani’s stance, and unless you simply believe him to be a total and absolute liar, he has repeatedly stated that he will do the one thing that a President can do to help end Abortion: Appoint strict constructionist judges. Again, this is the only thing that a President can do about Abortion.
Another argument is that if you (as a pro-life voter) vote for a pro-choice Republican, then somehow you are loosing some clout, or perhaps wavering in your principals. I also do not think that this is true at all. A vote for a candidate does not constitute 100% agreement and support of every single personal position or decision a candidate makes. Heck, I certainly don’t agree with 100% of every decision that my best friends make. Should I stop calling them friends? Because I choose to call them my friend, does this constitute me approving of 100% of their decisions? Of course not.
As a side, the same principal can be applied to the religion of a candidate. If I voted for Mitt Romney – does this mean that I agree with Mormonism in any way? No. This is because in politics, what matters is a person’s value system. Supporting a political candidate has absolutely nothing to do with agreement on someone’s theological beliefs.
Once again, the same idea stands for a presidential candidate. What matters with supporting a public servant is whether or not they will do things that will help (promote) your value system. Also, you must be willing to compromise when it comes to voting, because there is no way that we will ever elect a person you happen to agree with 100% unless, of course, we elected you.
So for instance, say conservatives are faced with voting between Hillary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani. As a conservative, which of the two is going to do the most good furthering your value system? If, for example, Hillary Clinton is elected because you refused to vote for Rudy Giuliani – in effect – you (as a conservative) will be allowing someone with a value system that is much more opposed to your own, become elected – plain and simple. The same could be said between the conservative candidates. Between Huckabee and Romney – as President of the United States, who is going to do the most to help your value system ?
Completely writing someone off (note that this is often an emotional response rather than a pragmatic one) without considering their value system (especially without considering a candidate’s real practical impact on a certain issue: such as abortion) or the impact that another candidate will have in furthering your values, I think, is an irresponsible way to consider presidential candidates. It is important to think rationally and practically when you consider voting for a presidential candidate, whether Republican or Democrat. Single issue voting, in most cases, does much more harm than good. One last time: The question you should be considering as you enter the voting booth is: Which candidate will do the most to help promote my value system.
At least, that’s my opinion.
–Note– This post is not meant as an endorsement of a particular candidate. I use Giuliani as an example merely because this is the objection about him I hear the most from “the Evangelicals”.
Double Hawk for the win.
Yeah…what? This is for those of you that still think the NYT is, as they have so humbly self-proclaimed, “All that’s fit to print.”
Here’s a short excerpt from the Times extensive 9 page article:
“The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.” –Read it all here
If you read the article, you are left feeling a little concerned about vets, you know, that perhaps the war is making them more likely to commit violent crimes.
Oh, but wait a minute – what happens when you compare the numbers the Times ran about the vets with the actual national murder rate?
The Times documentation of 121 potential killings out of more than 1.5 million veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), divided by 6 years of conflict results in a murder rate of just 1.34 incidents per 100,000 veterans per year.
That murder rate is far lower than the murder rate for the general population, demonstrating that the experiences of military service – including having served in Iraq and Afghanistan – actually made it less likely for returning veterans to commit murder once they returned home, than the general population.
Given a census-estimated population of the United States of 300,000,000 persons in this country as of October 2006, and FBI-compiled statistics of 17,399 homicide offenders for 2006, the murder rate of the general population was 5.80 offenders per 100,000 on average – and a rate of approximately 7.67 per 100,000 for men.
In case you didn’t quite follow that, by conservative estimates: Our troops are actually more than 5 times LESS likely to commit a capitol offense than the average citizen their age. Military service actually makes it 80% less likely that you will be a murderer.
This little bit of data somehow blew right past the Times’ 9 page report: “Across America: Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles.” I guess comparing the numbers might not have supported their OPINION.
For those of you who are still reading this rotting maggot-laden piece of garbage, you may want to think about trying a paper that actually reports news, rather than subtly brainwashing you into a certain point of view.
Read the full counter report at Move America Forward.