The list is short, and simple.
- He’s pro-death. Anyone who votes to deny medical care to an infant born after a botched abortion is not fit to be a leader. Anyone who is pro-abortion for any reason (not merely in the [uncommon] event of endangering the life of the mother) is pro-death, and I will not vote for anyone who is willing for those who cannot speak for themselves to be extinguished.
- He’s anti-2d Amendment, which means he’s already failed to live up to the oath he took when entering office as Senator – to uphold the Constitution. If you want to enact a change, that’s fine, but it must go through the appropriate processes as outlined in the Constitution for accomplishing that.
- He’s a Socialist. Anyone who believes the government should be in the business of forcibly taking what someone has justly earned and give it to someone who has not, without their permission, is a Socialist. America is NOT the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – we are a Democratic Republic. We are Capitalists. If I want to give to charity, that is my prerogative, not the government’s. And for someone who is so concerned about “spreading the wealth”, why does he not give charitably? Why does he not take care, even in some small fashion, of relatives living in squalor while he resides in [relative] resplendent glory?
- He wants to raise taxes and spend more. We may or may not be entering an economic recession. But the last time someone proposed to do what he proposes to do, it was Herbert Hoover, followed by Franklin Roosevelt. Hoover proactively worked with Congress to raise taxes and tariffs, and helped catapult us into the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt helped hold us in the Depression by starting socialist work programs for political gain.
I want another Calvin Coolidge or Ronald Reagan to appear on the scene that will reign-in government spending and let America do what it does best: be productive.
We were founded by people looking for escape from oppression.
We were founded by people who were willing, ready, and capable of working hard – very hard – and making a life for themselves.
When politicians get the government out of the way, America does great things.
I’m curious which candidate you think does intend to get government out of the way?
I can assume that you realize at least a couple of the things on your list disqualify both Obama and McCain.
Well put Warren.
Wish we could have this posted on the front door of every voting precinct in America tomorrow.
Maybe with Alexis de Toqueville’s quote at the bottom of it, “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Hope all is well..
1. There was already a law that prohibited the practice in IL and there were other problems with the proposed law. That is hardly “pro-death”.
2. Not true. I wish he was, though, because there are too many damn guns out there.
3. Get real. Socialist because he supports the progressive income tax? The one originally passed by that icon of “liberalism” Teddy Roosevelt. (That was sarcasm, in case you missed it. T. Roosevelt was a Republican.)
4. He simply wants to roll-back to the taxes during the Clinton (and Reagan) times. They weren’t a drag then and will not be a drag now and it’s revenue neutral which is more than can be said for McCain’s budget busting proposal. The last thing we need is more deficit!
Reagan was wrong. Government is NOT the problem. The Republicans proved that aptly over the last 8 years (see current economic meltdown).
Ben – you’re right: I’m not voting for McCain either. Honestly, my best candidate this year was Ron Paul. We disagree on some issues, but I’m going to disagree with everyone on something.
Tanner: I’ll reply in order
1) pro-abortion is pro-death – whether or not you agree is up to you, but I’m convinced that life begins at conception. Even if it’s not until it’s “viable” – that’s in the second trimester
2) there aren’t “too many damn guns out there” – there are criminals using weapons of all kinds, and non-criminals using those self-same tools in legal fashions; if you want to ban guns, make sure you ban anything else that can be used in an illegal fashion – knives, bats, rocks, clubs, hands, feet, cars, attack dogs… it’s illogical to focus hatred at an inanimate object merely because a few people use them for Bad Things. Let’s not even get into the fact that criminals don’t use legal weapons anyways: it’salready illegal to cimmit robbery, murder, rape, etc – banning a specific tool used for some of those activities won’t stop them
3) I wouldn’t vote for Teddy Roosevelt either – he was a proponent of eugenics, which disqualifies him under my first point; progressive taxes are unhealthy, and unfair; relying on the few to pay for the many without the many contributing sustains and encourages a welfare state
4) rolling-back to higher taxes will only accelerate us into a recession, perhaps into a depression. Go ahead and root for it if you want, but I’m not looking forward to it
Reagan was right: too much government IS a problem. The current crop of Republicans, including our President, haven’t lived up to their recent icon at all – spending on projects liek No Child Left Behind, pork, and other crap hasn’t helped anyone except a few people who benefit from those pork projects
I’ve just got a moment, since I’m working as an election official today, but I just have to respond to your outrageous assertion about “pro-abortion”. There is NO ONE, anywhere, that is pro-abortion. If you get to the point that an abortion is necessary, then something has failed in the process. Just because someone doesn’t think government should make that decision does not make the pro-death. Every situation is different and NOTHING is ever black and white, as much as you may want to paint it that way.
To put it in more concrete terms, take the situation where you have twins and one of them didn’t form a heart. The other twin is pumping for both but it’s not keeping up. You can either abort one twin and save the other or you can let both die. Granted, this is a horrible situation, but it is a very real situation that is better suited to a mother, father and their doctor to decide rather than have the choice taken from them by a law.
I did, very intentionally, leave the situation of dire health consequences available.
But lots of folks are pro-abortion – anyone who wants to make it available for “convenience” is pro-death, in my view.
By “necessary”, I presume you’d also only pick extreme conditions, such as the one you listed, rather than because “now’s not the time” or “I’m not ready to have a baby”.