Listen to Erathoniel ranting on and on in good ol' conservative Christian fashion.
Published on September 6, 2008 By erathoniel In Republican

Now, I'll admit that as a party, Republicans are a mite too quick to fight. In fact, if you look back, McCain's kinda been attacking Obama first (or at least his ads have been on my TV first). However, when you look at it, would you rather have a pacifist, or a Repugilist? I mean, the Republicans may fight too much, but do the Democrats fight enough? Do they actually push for what they want (outside of the bedroom?), or do they just stamp "yea", "nay", or "present", and go back to sleep. Republicans are willing to give blood to defend this country, the Democrats seem unwilling to give a small amount of ink to defend America. So, I ask you, is it better to have a pushover who won't defend the innocent (in fact, if you look at Obama, he blatantly attacks the innocent, or at least doesn't allow his beliefs to intrude on others by defending them, as evidenced in his voting on abortion laws [post-birth abortion, practically], but that's another story [for now, I ask you to picture the political cartoon depicting him standing over a dumpster with a bloody baseball bat saying "Just making sure there are no survivors."]), or is it better to have somebody who would shed his own blood to save every American citizen from radical terrorists?


Comments
on Sep 08, 2008

I agree with one facet of this.  What the media is calling "attack ads" are nothing more than ads stating the less desireable side of the opposition.  Every ad except "Look, a butterfly!" is in some way an attack ad.  The media just hates them because the republican ones have generally been more effective.  But they are not bad regardless of what "big Brother" wants you to think.

Ads that are decietful however are.  When they start coming out, I hope they are labeled as such.  I am sure the republican ones will be.  I doubt the democrat ones will be.

on Sep 11, 2008

I am an independent voter, and I am having a hard time understanding one thing about what you said.  What about McCain's plans do you agree with?  You are saying that Republicans are willing to give blood, but at what cost?  There were no WMD and 4,155 soliders have died.  I have friends that are soliders and I work with them as well and I really think that if you had to see your comrades head laying next to you, you would think about diplomacy before bloodshed.  Unfortunately, I cannot see that view of yours.  In fact, it is a spit in the face of the men and women who have gave their lives for a LIE.  As for abortion, I think that it is a church = state íssue, and the USA does not have that.  If I was an atheist and did not believe in God, why cannot I have an abortion...because it is in the bible? 

on Sep 11, 2008

In fact, it is a spit in the face of the men and women who have gave their lives for a LIE.

So did we not remove a radical dictator? We did not help people? Why do you insist that because your life was not directly bettered or improved by something that it is wrong?

As for abortion, I think that it is a church = state íssue, and the USA does not have that. If I was an atheist and did not believe in God, why cannot I have an abortion...because it is in the bible?

So, wait, is it not amoral to kill for convenience? So you're saying I could get a gun, go into a store, and shoot anybody ahead of me in line? What's the difference? You kill someone who is perfectly capable of living for your own convenience.

What about McCain's plans do you agree with?

Most everything.

Meta
Views
» 291
Comments
» 3
Category
Sponsored Links