Election 2004!

[Tim Vaughan]

Within that context it would be foolish to support the greater of the moral candidates if he has no chance of winning.

Well, first it's light vs. dark, now it's light vs. dark vs. dim.

If Philips, Taki and Sproul all endose this guy, I'm close to 99% sure I'll support him.

[Soldier4Christ]

I think you hit the nail on the head. He wants us to beleive he is a Christian yet the majority of his posts indicate elsewise, that he wants us all to do the devils bidding by not voting so the devil can have his way and that we should all turn our backs on atrocities in other countries.

If you knew how little I cared about your belief concerning my salvation, your hair would stand straight up in shock.

The majority of my posts? Well, I don't worship George Bush, and frankly think him a simple minded fool, but aside from your claiming to know the motives of the Devil you haven't even demonstrated, or even tried to demonstrate one instance of where my theology differs from historic, orthodox Christian teaching.

Nahhh......I wouldn't be shocked at all. That doesn't matter but what you a teaching here does.

Worship George Bush? Not me, he is a man and as such capable of making mistakes. He is however the best candidate running for President.

As for your theology, many on here have pointed it out myself included. You just chose to ignore it because as you said you don't care.

As for your salvation, I apologize if it seemed I was judging that. That is not my place to determine if you are or are not saved, that is between you and God. My intentions were in reference to your teachings.

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, I'm glad to see that you are back. We are dealing with a couple of trolls now, but they probably won't be here long. Their little horns are already showing.    That usually means a troll melt-down. They usually come here thinking that Christians are entertainment. It's really pretty sad, but most of them get exposed to some good while they are here.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Tim Vaughan]

Brother, I'm glad to see that you are back. We are dealing with a couple of trolls now, but they probably won't be here long. Their little horns are already showing.    That usually means a troll melt-down. They usually come here thinking that Christians are entertainment. It's really pretty sad, but most of them get exposed to some good while they are here.

What is a Troll? I am using my real name unlike several people here.

I am a member in good standing in the Afrikaans Protestant Kerk in South Africa, and plan on joining a conservative PCA church in the near future. I studied under Rushdoony, the grandfather of the homeschooling movement, and have written for the Chalcedon Report. None of my 7 children have ever seen the inside of an American Public highschool. I have never used illegal drugs and have never has sex with anyone except my wife.
I believe that the 66 books of the holy Bible are the inspired word of God, and hold to the seven ecumenical councils.

What horns are you speaking of? Holding a little rich fool like Bush in contempt? Throwing our money away on foreign adventures? Being discussted with neocon behavior?

You can go back in history and everyone from Augustine, Guttenburg, Edwards, Gill, Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee,Pasteur,etc.. would rise up and call me brother.

Take heed with your slander.

[Soldier4Christ]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, I'm glad to see that you are back. We are dealing with a couple of trolls now, but they probably won't be here long. Their little horns are already showing.    That usually means a troll melt-down. They usually come here thinking that Christians are entertainment. It's really pretty sad, but most of them get exposed to some good while they are here.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Thank you, brother. I just couldn't stay away.

[sincereheart]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, I'm glad to see that you are back.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Ditto!  

[Soldier4Christ]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, I'm glad to see that you are back.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Ditto!  

Thank you.

[nChrist]

Tim Vaughn,

A troll is a trouble maker.

By the way, we don't need to take heed with anything. You are a guest here, and that invitation can be cancelled.

You've almost set a record of being rude and antagonizing such a large number of people in such a short time. I suggest that you read the forum rules and pay particular attention to disruptive posts.

In case you missed the formal warning in another thread, this is a formal warning. This is not a government forum, so your only rights here are to obey the forum rules as a guest. You are not standing in your own living room here. If you wish to keep being rude and obnoxious, it won't be here.

Moderator

[Tim Vaughan]

By the way, we don't need to take heed with anything. You are a guest here, and that invitation can be cancelled.

Oh yes you do need to take heed. You've passed judgement on my by saying that I have horns, a distinct reference to Satan. Pushing a "banned" button will not relieve you of accountablity.

[ollie]

BUSH MISLEADS ON KERRY

In a speech yesterday, President Bush made statements that "ignored elements of Mr. Kerry's record and stated positions in a way that paints an incomplete or distorted portrait of his approach."[1] Here are two examples:

Yesterday, Bush said, "Senator Kerry's approach would permit a response only after America is hit."[2] In fact, Kerry has explicitly said that he would use preemptive force when necessary. During the first presidential debate Kerry said, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike...No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."[3]

Bush also said Kerry was "against vital weapon systems during his entire career."[4] According to the non-partisan Factcheck.org, the Bush campaign "bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons."[5] Nonetheless, since Kerry has been in Congress he has voted for
16 of the 19 overall Pentagon funding bills. Therefore, "even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should - on balance - be called a supporter of the 'vital' weapons."[6]

Sources:

1. "Bush Adds Teeth to His Attacks on Kerry," New York Times, 10/19/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63708.
2. "Transcript: Bush Attacks Kerry's Security Proposals," Washinton Post, 10/18/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63709.
3. "Debate Transcript: The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate," Commission on Presidential Debates, 9/30/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63710.
4. "Transcript: Bush Attacks Kerry's Security Proposals," Washinton Post, 10/18/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63709.
5. "More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record," FactCheck.org, 4/30/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63711.
6. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63711.

[nChrist]

By the way, we don't need to take heed with anything. You are a guest here, and that invitation can be cancelled.

Oh yes you do need to take heed. You've passed judgement on my by saying that I have horns, a distinct reference to Satan. Pushing a "banned" button will not relieve you of accountablity.

You're also funny. It appears that you passed judgement on yourself since I didn't mention any names. It's funny how that works.

Moderator

[Tim Vaughan]

You're also funny. It appears that you passed judgement on yourself since I didn't mention any names. It's funny how that works.

Give me your word as a Christian that you didn't have me in mind when you spoke of certain people showing their horns, and I will apologise.

[Andrew Fritz]

Within that context it would be foolish to support the greater of the moral candidates if he has no chance of winning.

Well, first it's light vs. dark, now it's light vs. dark vs. dim.

If Philips, Taki and Sproul all endose this guy, I'm close to 99% sure I'll support him.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to say. But what I want you to take note of is this: There are two different categories of candidates, good and bad. Among the good there are the "better" and the "best". And among the bad there are the "bad" and the "worse".

President Bush and Peroutka are both good candidates. And I have to agree that on the issues of godliness and morality, Peroutka is much stronger minded. But casting a vote for a nonviable candidate isn't going to change this country, it's going to let it continue on it's current course.

President Bush is not the "BEST" candidate on the issue of morality, but he's at least a "GOOD" candidate on the the issue of morality. Most of your other options for voting are candidates who are "BAD". But what saddens my heart is that you would shortchange a "GOOD" candidate by voting for a "BEST" candidate that really only helps the "BAD" candidate.

Nobody can deny this simple truth. Lets all gather around the "GOOD" candidate that can win, and not go chasing after nonsense by casting pointless votes for somebody who can't win anything. It's not right to cast a foolish vote, even if it's for conscience sake. That's allot of selfishness; putting your own conscience before the well-being of our country and nation.

If Senator Kerry can manage to win the election, we won't have a president who has blocked funding to U.N. organizations supporting abortion, we won't have a president who has and who will continue to put pro life and pro constitutional judges in our courts, we won't have a president who will sign legislation banning abortion, and homosexual marriages, we won't have a president who will protect our country like it is right now, we won't have a president who will put a stop to U.N. control over our military and citizens, and we won't have a president who will do any good for this nation.

That's the truth folks. Please take it, don't leave it...

I've said all I can say. If you aren't persuaded by now, then you aren't willing to listen. I'm praying that each one of you with these ideas will stop and seriously think. Not think about what you could have said as a rebuttal to what I just said, but think about how YOU are thinking.

Andrew Fritz

[Andrew Fritz]

BUSH MISLEADS ON KERRY

In a speech yesterday, President Bush made statements that "ignored elements of Mr. Kerry's record and stated positions in a way that paints an incomplete or distorted portrait of his approach."[1] Here are two examples:

Yesterday, Bush said, "Senator Kerry's approach would permit a response only after America is hit."[2] In fact, Kerry has explicitly said that he would use preemptive force when necessary. During the first presidential debate Kerry said, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike...No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."[3]

Bush also said Kerry was "against vital weapon systems during his entire career."[4] According to the non-partisan Factcheck.org, the Bush campaign "bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons."[5] Nonetheless, since Kerry has been in Congress he has voted for
16 of the 19 overall Pentagon funding bills. Therefore, "even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should - on balance - be called a supporter of the 'vital' weapons."[6]

Sources:

1. "Bush Adds Teeth to His Attacks on Kerry," New York Times, 10/19/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63708.
2. "Transcript: Bush Attacks Kerry's Security Proposals," Washinton Post, 10/18/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63709.
3. "Debate Transcript: The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate," Commission on Presidential Debates, 9/30/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63710.
4. "Transcript: Bush Attacks Kerry's Security Proposals," Washinton Post, 10/18/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63709.
5. "More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record," FactCheck.org, 4/30/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63711.
6. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=63711.

This isn't about a decision on which type of kitchenware to buy for the army. These are big-time, well know, and greatly used weapons...

"The Massachusetts senator voted against defense appropriations bills that included money for weapons such as the Patriot missile, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the B-2 stealth bomber — all of which military leaders say have become integral to the U.S. force and were crucial to winning the 1991 Gulf war and last year's war in Iraq. According to voting records, Mr. Kerry also favored cutting or canceling spending on the Apache helicopter, the M-1 Abrams tank and a wide range of fighter jets".[1]

[1] http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040223-115221-2572r.htm

[nChrist]

Andrew Fritz Said:

President Bush and Peroutka are both good candidates. And I have to agree that on the issues of godliness and morality, Peroutka is much stronger minded. But casting a vote for a nonviable candidate isn't going to change this country, it's going to let it continue on it's current course.

President Bush is not the "BEST" candidate on the issue of morality, but he's at least a "GOOD" candidate on the the issue of morality. Most of your other options for voting are candidates who are "BAD". But what saddens my heart is that you would shortchange a "GOOD" candidate by voting for a "BEST" candidate that really only helps the "BAD" candidate.

Brother,

I agree with you. I took a long, hard look at the Constitution Party this year. I liked what little I could find out about their candidate. I even studied their platform, and most of it is pretty good. Parts of the platform wouldn't work without large numbers of Constitution Party members already in office.

You're right, the Constitution Party candidate is not viable and doesn't have a chance. The result will be a very small percentage vote, maybe 1% to 3%, that could be critical votes to keep John Kerry out of the White House. In other words, it's quite possible that a vote for the Constitution Party candidate will elect John Kerry.

I did read enough about the Constitution Party that I would like to see their Candidates in all local, county, and state races. Building a track record of some sort and becoming a known entity appears to be a first and most reasonable task for the Constitution Party. I searched for what information I got, but most Christians have never heard of the Constitution Party. I did get to read a short brief about candidate Peroutka. From what little information I was able to obtain, he sounds like a good and moral man. I really don't know, but I can't allow my misplaced vote to elect John Kerry.

Love In Christ,
Tom