GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Who would you vote for today?  (Read 24177 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #255 on: February 18, 2012, 11:19:02 AM »
President Bush (SR) quotes on new world order and United nations:
 
"Time and again in this century, the political map of the world was transformed.  And in each instance, a new world order came about through the advent of a new tyrant or the outbreak of a bloody global war, or its end."  Feb 28, 1990---this quote is six months before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August.
 
"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective--a new world order--can emerge......  We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."    --Sep 11 1990
 
Pres Bush delivers an address to Congress titled "Toward a New World Order," regarding the crisis in the Persian Gulf after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August.  He will follow this with and October 1 address to the U.N., in which he will speak of the "collective strength of the world community expressed by the U.N....a historic movement towards a new world order."
 
"I think what's at stake here is the new world order....a reinvigorated United Nations." -Jan 7 1991
 
"(The Gulf crisis) has to do with a new world order.  And that world order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the United nations proves to be effective."  -Jan 9 1991
 
"When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders."  -Jan 16 1991
 
A quote from an invitation sent to Republican contributors throughout the United Stated in May 1991:  "Now, our President faces greater tasks.  And he must have help from like-minded men and women in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate who can help him establish the "new world order" he seeks."
 
1992 - July 20 Time magazine published "The Birth of the Global Nation" by Strobe Talbott (Rhodes scholar roommate of Bill Clinton at Oxford University, CFR director, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace board of directors member, and Trilateralist from a wealthy Ohio investment banking family), in which he writes:  All countries are basically social arrangements....No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary....Perhaps national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all....But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government."
 
1992 - August 26: The New York Times publishes "The World Needs an Army on Call" by U.S. Senator David Boren (Rhodes Scholar 1963, CFR member, and member of "Skull and Bones") in which he states:  "In the aftermath of World War II, President Truman wanted to empower the United Nations to create a new world order....Richard Gardner proposes that forty to fifty member nations contribute to a rapid-deployment force of one hundred thousand volunteers that could train under common leadership....It is time for us to create such a force....The existence of such a force would go a long way toward making the "new world order" more than just a slogan."
 
1993 - Jan 13: Confirmation hearings are held for CFR member Warren Christopher's nomination to be Secretary of State.  He and Senator Joseph Biden discuss the possibility of NATO becoming a peacekeeping surrogate for the U.N. "to foster the creation of a new world order."  That is just what happened in Bosnia.
 
1993 - April 21: General Colin Powell receives the United Nations Association-USA's Global Leadership Award, and he remarks:  "The United Nations will spearhead our efforts to manage the new conflicts (that afflict our world)....Yes the principles of the United Nations Charter are worth our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."      !!!!!?????
 
1993 - May 4: New CFR president Leslie Gelb (formerly and editor at The New York Times ) says on "The Charlie Rose Show" that  "...you(Charlie Rose) had me on (before) to talk about the new world order....I talk about it all the time....It's one world now...."
 
1993 - June 22.  In case there is any doubt about whether President Clinton(CFR) supports world government, on this date he signs a letter to the World Federalist Association congratulating Strobe Talbott(CFR) on receiving (june 24) the WFA's first "Norman Cousins Global Governance Award."  The WFA is a leading force for world federal government.  Clinton's letter states:  "Norman Cousins worked for world peace and world government...Strobe Talbott's lifetime achievements as a voice for global harmony have earned him this recognition....He will be a worthy recipient of the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award.  Best wishes....for future success."
 
1993 - July 18:  CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in The Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA:  "What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system....a first step toward a new world order."
 
1993 - September 9:  Concerning whether U.S. troops should remain in Somalia as part of a U.N. operation, General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that a pullout would be "devastating to our hopes for the new world order and our ability to participate in multinational organizations to deal with problems like this."
 
1993 - W. Scott Thompson (Rhodes Scholar 1963-66) writes "Conflict and Conflict Resolution:  On to the Twenty-First Century"  for the federal United Stated Institute of Peace, of which he is a board member appointed by President Reagan in 1986.  In this article, Thompson writes about "a positive factor: the greater reliance on (and opportunity for) the United Nations to resolve perennial conflicts....In addition to a strengthened U.N., a New World Order requires understandings and divisions of labor among like-minded friends across the globe."
 
1994 - World Federalist Association will publish The Genius of Federation:  Why World Federation Is the Answer to Global Problems, which will state:  "Let the U.N. establish new agencies such as an International Criminal Court....National sovereignty would be gradually eroded until it is no longer an issue.  Eventually a world federation can be formally adopted with little resistance."
 
1994 - April 14:  Americans are killed as a result of a "friendly fire" attack while patrolling over Iraq, and Vice-President Al Gore will refer to them as "those who died in the service of the United Nations."     !!!!!?????
 
1994 - May 3:  President Clinton signs Presidential Decision Directive 25, which strengthens the U.N. and describes how American soldiers will serve under foreign commanders.  PDD25 will only be released to top administration officials and a few member of Congress, the general public is refused access.
 
1994 - the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor March 1995 quotes Vladimir Zhirinovsky on Nov 9 at a press conference at the U.N. said,  "There has long been a hidden agenda to merge America and Russia under the New World Order."
 
1995 - Jan 27:  Billionaire financier George Soros at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, says the world needs a "new world order," and he further warns: "I am here to alert you that we are entering a period of world disorder."
 
1995 - July/August: In the CFR's Foreign Affairs, prominent CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. exclaims:  "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."
 
1995 - The report, "Our Global Neighborhood," by The Commission on Global Governance (partly funded by the U.N. Development Program and endorsed by the U.N. Secretary-General) is released, and states:  "A new world order must be organized....Global governance is the way we manage global affairs....nations have to accept that in certain fields, sovereignty has to be exercised collectively....We need to accept that there may be circumstances within countries when the security of people is so severely violated that external intervention becomes justified.  We propose that the U.N. Charter be amended to permit intervention in such circumstances....We believe that there is a need for a highly trained U.N. Volunteer (military) Force....Accelerated progress must be made toward demilitarizing the international society...We strongly endorse community initiatives to ...encourage the disarming of civilians....The inadequac
 
1996 - Jan 24:  U.S. Army Specialist Michael New is convicted at a court-martial on a charge of refusing an order to wear a U.N. insignia.
 
1996 - A Reporter's Life by Walter Cronkite is published, in which he proclaims:  " if we are to avoid catastrophe, a system of world order--preferably a system of world government --is mandatory.  The proud nations someday will ....yield up their precious sovereignty."
 
1996 - May 11 Journalist Joan Veon interviews David C. Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World (1995) and former Ford Foundation project specialist in Manila.  In this interview, Korten claims that:  "the World Trade Organization is creating a world government in which one organization which is totally unelected, wholly secretive....with the power to virtually override and local or national laws if those in any way inconvenience global corporations....It was a terrible shock (to those of us who supported Bill Clinton) when Clinton came in and GATT and NAFTA became the centerpieces of his policy....And in a sense, there was almost a seamless transition from President Bush to President Clinton in that regard....Our democracy has been rendered meaningless by big money.  The truth is there are politicians (who) are owned lock, stock and barrel by the big money interests....Our elections create, to some extent, a facade of choice."   
1996 - October 23:  On "The Charlie Rose Show" on the Public Broadcasting System, Mikhail Gorbachev states: "We are part of the Cosmos.  Cosmos is my God.  Nature is my God....The future society will be a totally new civilization which will synthesize the experience of Socialism and Capitalism...."
 
1998 - May 5:  The New York Times publishes "The New World Order" by A. M. Rosenthal, in which he writes:  "The U.S., its democratic allies and major dictatorships are rapidly building a new world order....The U.S. gets to sell strategic material to China, offering as an extra a visit by the U.S. President to honor the Communist leaders and expand their power and political life span.  Religious and political mavericks in the totalitarian partners of the new world order get prison, or death, often both.  The press of the democracies gets to write about the growth of order in the new order.  Other citizens of the democracies get to say costs of imported goods are down, how nice.  Americans and Europeans may come to object for political or moral reasons, or because the new world order may after all cost
 
2001 - "There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this (9-11) disaster to carry out ... a new world order."  (Gary Hart, at a televised meting organized by the CFR in Washington, D.C. Sept 14.)
 
 
 
SELECTED WARNINGS ABOUT A 'NEW WORLD ORDER'  from the founder of The John Birch Society, Robert Welch, and published in the Society's Bulletin:
 
1972 - May, page 10   "Or, as fellow Insider Mr. James Reston of the New York Times enthusiastically puts it, deliberately using the two-hundred years old language and slogan of the Conspiracy -- 'Mr. Nixon cannot become the head of a new world order (Novus Ordo Seclorum) unless the Communist nations are brought into the world order....' "
 
1972 - Sept, page 29  "This plan is to establish -- very soon -- the first stages of a 'new world order.'  This will be the novus ordo seclorum for which a self-perpetuating inner circle of Conspirators has been working and scheming relentlessly during some six generations...."
 
1972 - Oct, page 28   "There should be no surprise for longtime readers of the Bulletin....that those plans include the conversion of the United States into a socialist nation....and the merger of that enslaved segment of mankind with other Communist nations into a New World Order.  That goal, under that very name -- originally written in bastardized Latin as novus ordo seclorum -- has been envisioned by a Master Conspiracy for the past two hundred years as the ultimate product of all its crimes against humanity, and of all its subversive onslaughts against western civilization."

 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #255 on: February 18, 2012, 11:19:02 AM »

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10127
  • Manna: 148
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #256 on: February 18, 2012, 02:43:11 PM »
Now I am being credited with Nick's quotes.  (By the way he makes his living as an accountant so I think he understands and audit)  However, I am inclined to join Nick in no longer responding to RP supporters there is no reasoning with folks living in a fantasy world.
"He drew a circle that excluded me.  I drew a circle that included him.."  W. Carl Ketcherside

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #256 on: February 18, 2012, 02:43:11 PM »

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #257 on: February 19, 2012, 08:12:26 AM »
Now I am being credited with Nick's quotes.  (By the way he makes his living as an accountant so I think he understands and audit)  However, I am inclined to join Nick in no longer responding to RP supporters there is no reasoning with folks living in a fantasy world.

Yeah right. You have nothing to say to counter what president, congressmen, senators and other prominant people have said so run away.

You're running from a truth you can't handle. You're in denial

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #258 on: February 20, 2012, 07:06:50 AM »
If the Ron Paul supporters I've read on here are any indication Paul actually has a very poor understanding of economics.

Thats just silly.

No, it isn't.  The Fed is audited every year.  That's a fact.  A gold standard is logically impossible.  That's a fact.   

 

Then change the Constitution that requires a gold standard

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #258 on: February 20, 2012, 07:06:50 AM »

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #259 on: February 23, 2012, 01:16:59 PM »
This from a Baptist Pastor and former presidential candidate

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4609

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #259 on: February 23, 2012, 01:16:59 PM »



Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #260 on: February 23, 2012, 01:37:48 PM »
If the Ron Paul supporters I've read on here are any indication Paul actually has a very poor understanding of economics.


Thats just silly.


No, it isn't.  The Fed is audited every year.  That's a fact.  A gold standard is logically impossible.  That's a fact.  

 


They are NOT audited "every year" by Congress and it's Congress who, as per our Constitution is the ONLY entity legally charged with control of our currency.
But as far as audits here is Berny Sanders (yeah I know he's a socialist) talking about the FIRST EVER audit of the Fed revealing $16  TRILLION transferred to foreign banks.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3


So if you don't believe Sanders because he's a filthy socialist, maybe we can believe Forbes?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/

Wikipedia's summery of the Transparency Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act

A more comprehensive take on the audit of the Fed but specifically an audit of the Gold.
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1089.html

Though I admit there have been "audits" these "audits" are NOT audits by Congress who literally conducted the FIRST audit EVER of the Fed (a partial one at that) last year and revealed over $16 Trillion in bailouts to foreign banks and corporations.


It's such a shame we have so many people who are so willing to leave our children strapped with the massive amounts of debt (servitude) that we're incurring on our children's behalf. I can't see how that is something our Lord would approve of.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 12:50:00 PM by Captain Shays »

Offline studybuddy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Manna: 4
  • Gender: Female
  • Math 4:24
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #261 on: March 02, 2012, 12:46:48 AM »
I am very interested in following this thread as I have very few people in my everyday life that I feel are truly informed on the candidates.

Some of the top points of concern for me is: whether or not the candidate lives the morals they claim. (Christian claims & cheating spouses don't equate), Does the candidate seem to have a viable plan for supporting Israel?,  Will they send our military into an "undeclared war" with insufficient backing & then fail to take care of our returning wounded vets. or the families of vets?, they will have to secure our boarders in a MUCH more effective way & quit making ways for illegal immigrants to get "amnesty"., how do they plan to export illegals with "anchor babies"?  What do they plan to do to get companies taking advantage of NAFTA to bring their jobs back to home soil?, Military personnel receive a cost of living increase for each of the FIRST THREE dependents born; yet welfare recipients get cost of living  increases for EVERY dependent born; moreover, there is very little follow through to identifying "fathers" who are living with the mother & child, but not married, therefore not accountable.  Also how do the stand on the controlling marijuana issue.

I am genuinely curious for evidence on how each candidate has tracked on these issues, so please help me make an informed choice.

looking for redemption

Offline OurGodIsOne

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #262 on: March 02, 2012, 09:05:09 AM »
Santorum.

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #263 on: March 02, 2012, 09:21:48 AM »
Study Buddy)  Some of the top points of concern for me is: whether or not the candidate lives the morals they claim. (Christian claims & cheating spouses don't equate),

Captain Shays) Rick Santorum has been married to the sme wife for many years. Romney also has. They both have intact beautiful families. Ron Paul has been married to the same woman for over 50 years, and also has a beautiful intact family.
NewtWorld Order Gingrich has cheated on two different wives and is married to his third.


Study Buddy)  Does the candidate seem to have a viable plan for supporting Israel?,

That depends on what "supporting Israel" means Buddy. In the many years of this country's "support" of Israel, we have also "supported" their enemies as well. The same enemies who on three different occassions surrounded Israel and attacked them. Since the Jimmy Carter years on average we have subsidized Israel with $3.5 Billion per year while we have subsidized their enemies with $7.5 Billion every year. It's one thing to say we "support" Israel and another to have our good intentions be the road that leads to hell. If we were to eliminate ALL foreign aid to ALL countries including Israel then they would actually be much better off.
But, it's worse than that, because associated with those subsidies is a notion that we can inform them on what they can or cannot do in their own protection. Just recently our government told them not to attack Iran. When Israel attacked Iraq in the 80's our government condemned them. Only three Representatives refused to sign on to that condemnation and Ron Paul was one of them. Three different times Israel had the PLO on the ropes and could have wiped them out once and for all and, this while Yasser Arafat was still just a terrorist thug with the nickname "King of Terror" and our government stopped Israel. Most of them went on to murder more innocent Iaraeli's.
During the Oslo Accords the negotiations came to an impasse when the King of Terror turned "Prime Minister" Arafat demanded that Israel release 1,000 prisoners ALL who had Israeli blood on their hands. Clinton pushed for their release and Barak capitulated and released them. They ALL went on to murder more innocent Jews in the Infatada. One of those released prisoners was a man named Mohammod Atta who was one of the terrorists who flew a plane into the World Trade Center on 911. This is what our "support" or customary support has done.

Also. As Christians we need to be mindful to adhere to biblical accuracy. ALL through our bible it's CLEAR that God is the protector of Israel. Not the United States. So we need to be aware of what the truth is for to apply to anything or anyone the attributes of God, is actually a form of blasphemy. If God says that He is the protector of Israel then for a politician or a candidate for office makes promises like Gingrich, Santorum and Romney have made that "I will not stand by and allow our friends Israel to be destroyed" they are blaspheming and we should not vote for them.
We also know from scripture that once the Jews come back into their country Israel they will NEVER AGAIN be destroyed until Jesus returns and wipes out the antichrist and the one world government and sets His throne up in Jerusalem. So to say or imply that Israel will be destroyed without US "support" is not only blasphemy but a bold faced lie.

Then we have the Christian Just War Principles that the early Church designed and many Christian nations since then have adhered to as well the Founding Fathers of this great country.
These principles fall in line with our belief in the Prince of Peace and reject the gods of war in this fallen world system.
They are based in scripture which allow killing in four instances

1) capital punishment

2) by accident

3) self defense

4) in defense of your loved ones.

ALL other killing is a violation of the Commandment "Thou shall not murder".

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who's foreign policy and national defense falls in line with the Christian Just War Principles (which he often invokes) and that of the founding fathers as well as the Constitution.

 Study Buddy) Will they send our military into an "undeclared war" with insufficient backing & then fail to take care of our returning wounded vets. or the families of vets?,

Captain Shays) ALL of the candidates except for one advocates going to war without a formal declaration. Ron Paul.

 (Study Buddy) they will have to secure our boarders in a MUCH more effective way & quit making ways for illegal immigrants to get "amnesty"., how do they plan to export illegals with "anchor babies"?

Captain Shays) ALL of the candidates has expressed a policy to reduce illegal immigration and border security. We all have to review those policies and decide for ourselves who has the integrity to follow through and who has the most rational and compassionate plan for accomplishing it. As for me, I support Ron Paul mainly because compared to ANY OTHER elected politician over the course of his 30+ years in office he has been consistent in his voting record always adhering to his oath to uphold the Constitution not only in his rhetoric but also in his voting record. What I have seen from the others is their changable, shifting and inconsistent character in rhetoric and voting so I trust Ron Paul to do what he says and say what he means even if I may disagree with him.
Ron Paul would use the troops that now secure the North-South Korean border and the Iran-Iraq border to secure our own border with Mexico. He woujld cut out ALL government aid to ilegal immigrants like housing, health care and education. If we did that most of them would go home on their own and we wouldn't need to round them up and deport them.
 
(Study Buddy) What do they plan to do to get companies taking advantage of NAFTA to bring their jobs back to home soil?,

Captain Shays) Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE who has expressed his support of a repeal of not only NAFTA, but CAFTA, SPP, WTO and IMF. ALL of these  extra-national "trade agreements" have greatly diminished our sovereignty as a nation, worked to destroy our production base (NAFTA cost us over a million jobs by 2000) and have subverted the free market. NONE are "free market" ALL are more government.
EVERY ONE of the other candidates wants to "reform" those agreements but NOT repeal them. ONLY Ron Paul wants to repeal them. You can't reform cancer. You need to cut it out!


Study Buddy) Military personnel receive a cost of living increase for each of the FIRST THREE dependents born; yet welfare recipients get cost of living  increases for EVERY dependent born; moreover, there is very little follow through to identifying "fathers" who are living with the mother & child, but not married, therefore not accountable.

Captain Shays) Our active military personnel support Ron Paul more than ALL the other candidates, Obama, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich COMBINED multiplied by FIVE. They know that he would NEVER send them into an undeclared, unnecessary war without a declaration. That he would WIN the war then come home. He also would support them after they serve our country and they KNOW that. We just can't say that about the others. Obama is going to decrease their benefits.

Study Buddy) Also how do the stand on the controlling marijuana issue.

Captain Shays) PLEASE read "Vices Are Not Crimes" by Lysinder Spooner. Also READ the book of Genesis. When God created all the plants, and fish and animals He said "It is good" (for our use). There was ONLY ONE plant that we were forbidden to eat of it's fruit-the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" in the center of the Garden. Unless we can believe that Marijuana is that plant, then, it's one of the other plants that God created and said was good and for our use. If we are to believe that our God is all wise and all knowing then we should believe that HE knew what He was doing when He made Marijuana. For one man to tell another man "you can touch this plant but not that plant" is not only arrogant and authoritarian but somewhat blasphemous. In Romans 14:2 says "One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegitables".
14:3 Let not him who eats regard with contempt he who does not eat, and let not him who does eat judge him who eats for God has accepted him".
14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own maser he stands or falls: and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand".
 
But, we must be careful what we do with our liberty

14:13 Therefore let us not judge each other anymore but rather determine this-not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way".
14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean to him it is unclean."
14:15 For if because of food your brother is hurt you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
14:16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil:
14:17 for the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righeousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit
14:18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable and to God and approved by men
14:19 So then let us persue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another
14:20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
14:21 It is not good to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything by which your brother stumbles
14:22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who condemns not himself in what he approves.
14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not frokm faith is sin.
\

We also know that it's not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out.

What I have gatherd from my understanding of the liberties we have in Christ is that it's according to our own conscience and not a matter for the government--other people-- by force --to tell us what to eat or drink.
To say or imply that the govenrment should make ANY plant illegal is to assume that our all knowing all wise Lord made some sort of mistake when He made that plant and that the people who seek to make those plants off limits know better than God Himself.

ALL laws in the beginning of our country served but two purposes.

1) to keep us safe from whomever would do us harm. Primarily a foreign enemy, but after that, our own government, bullies, the mob, gangs, corporations, our neighbors and strangers

2) To protect our liberties from whomever would threaten them. The aforementioned list applies.

Constitutionally, the Federal Government HAS NO AUTHORITY to engage in a war on drugs or ANY OTHER individual choice we can make. Those all fall into the realm of state and local government structures.

On this ALL of the candidates except for one, Ron Paul have the same exact policy. Use the force of the Federal Govt to engage in a war on (some) drugs. The founders held to the same [osition as Ron Paul and he holds to the same position as the founding fathers


Study Buddy) I am genuinely curious for evidence on how each candidate has tracked on these issues, so please help me make an informed choice.

Captain Shays) I hope that I helped

« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 09:38:32 AM by Captain Shays »

Offline RichSr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Manna: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #264 on: March 06, 2012, 09:20:11 AM »
I cannot demand of Rush to apologize, when so many that call themselves woman conservative treat every other  conservative like treash.
First of all; DEMAND that women be treated with respect.
NEXT DEMAND Conservatives be treated the same as  liberals; and vice versa.
Next; Start treating each other  EQUALLY. That means stop chopping each other up.
  G O L D E N  R U L E!
Let us start considering what the political system does....
When we cast a vote for a candidate, what do we think we are voting for?
Consider what abortion is ; and what we are voting for, when we vote for it.
1) Taking the life of a defenseless child. Who should be voting for or against abortion?  What would Jesus vote for?  WE will ALL stand before GOD and give an account to GOD for our voting record.
2) what should we be voting for as constituents? Lazy ness? or thje work ethic?

I have a post I dod for one of the tea parties; I will try to re do it.

I am looking for a proper place to post it.

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #265 on: March 07, 2012, 12:46:15 PM »
I cannot demand of Rush to apologize, when so many that call themselves woman conservative treat every other  conservative like treash.
First of all; DEMAND that women be treated with respect.
NEXT DEMAND Conservatives be treated the same as  liberals; and vice versa.
Next; Start treating each other  EQUALLY. That means stop chopping each other up.
  G O L D E N  R U L E!
Let us start considering what the political system does....
When we cast a vote for a candidate, what do we think we are voting for?
Consider what abortion is ; and what we are voting for, when we vote for it.
1) Taking the life of a defenseless child. Who should be voting for or against abortion?  What would Jesus vote for?  WE will ALL stand before GOD and give an account to GOD for our voting record.
2) what should we be voting for as constituents? Lazy ness? or thje work ethic?

I have a post I dod for one of the tea parties; I will try to re do it.

I am looking for a proper place to post it.

Great points but I would like to ad my concern for unborn children in the wombs of women in foreign countries that my country bombs when their country never attacked us or threatened us along with the existing children who many cruely just label "collatoral damage".

Always remember that we're followers of "The Prince of Peace" not some god of war from this fallen world system

Offline Jett22

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
  • Manna: 18
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #266 on: May 08, 2012, 12:24:53 PM »
Down to two.

Here is a link to a comparison chart for those that care...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0oRX5D16N4XclBxaWxneDYtalU/edit?pli=1
Mercy triumphs over judgement!

causalset

  • Guest
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #267 on: June 06, 2012, 04:29:44 PM »
I vote for Ron Paul. He is the only true conservative. People like Romney are liberal and would probably go along with new world order just as much as Obama would. I mean honestly if it comes down to voting between Obama and Romney I probaby wouldn't vote because both are bad. Although I might consider writing Ron Paul in; of course writing him in wont' elect him but perhaps some sort of point would be made who knows.

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4183
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #268 on: June 06, 2012, 04:34:51 PM »
I vote for Ron Paul. He is the only true conservative. People like Romney are liberal and would probably go along with new world order just as much as Obama would. I mean honestly if it comes down to voting between Obama and Romney I probaby wouldn't vote because both are bad. Although I might consider writing Ron Paul in; of course writing him in wont' elect him but perhaps some sort of point would be made who knows.

I've considered doing the same thing. I hate seeing Obama in office, but how is Romney any better?
I am in need of being reminded of things that God has already taught me.

Trust me--I'm not like most people. 90% of the time, I'm straight-faced and it really isn't personal.

Offline Captain Shays

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Manna: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Who would you vote for today?
« Reply #269 on: June 07, 2012, 03:31:38 PM »
There are a host of major issues...to many of us out here. Those issues though they may be very important issues really don't get talked about during elections or just about any other time in the mainstream. I for one, believe in my heart of hearts that a few of certain issues in just about any combination has the potential to destroy this country every bit as much as a foreign enemy has the potnetial to destroy us but even more so.
When you think of all the weapons we have it's difficult to imagine any country on earth who thinks they might be successful in attacking the United States. The greatest dangers lie within our own borders and are more sinister because we don't even recognize them as threats. The Federal Reserve System comes to mind. Thomas Jefferson warned that central banks are a greater threat to our liberty than standing armies on our borders. But now we have our own government acting even worse than our former government Great Briton under King George. If you doubt me, just watch Kelly Thomas get tortured to death by police when they didn't know they were being watched by a camera and listened to by a microphone as they murdered him Watch as  Hpe Steffy's clothes were wripped off of her by five cops, and four of them being men as she screamed "what are you doing?" and "help". Consider that the autorization was just signed into law to deploy 30,000 military drones to fly over our country and spy on the citizens of this country. Consider that our miitary now has the authority to arrest and detain citizens indefinately, without charges being filed and without our ability to even consult an attorney. Consider that a man from New Jersey got arressted and his 20,000 taken from him in Tenessee as he drove through on his way to buy a car and they kept his money for months before giving it back to him. Consider that an 84 year old woman was strip searched at an airport by TSA operatives while flying to visit with her son. Consider that that same orginization the TSA is on video as one of their operatives has their hands down the pants of a 6 year old girls who was crying "mommy make them stop".

Have you noticed that I didn't mention a single terrorist from another country? In every case it was our own government that did those things and took away the rights of ordinary people.