Simpsons More Reliable than Schaffer

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Simpsons More Reliable than Schaffer

This is the show from Friday October 17th, 2008.

SUMMARY:

* The Simpsons Expose the 2-Party System: Go ahead! Throw away your vote! Hear Homer Simpson expose the fraudulent candidates from the two major political parties.

* Republican Senate Candidate Abandoned: The president of ARTL Action, Steve Curtis, talks with Bob about the Denver Post report that Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is being abandoned by deep-pocket conservatives like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Freedom's Watch. And it appears the National Republican Senatorial Committee is also about to leave him to his own devices. Consider this pro-life warning from four months ago to Colorado Republican leaders:

Right To Life Warns Colorado Republican Chairman

by Leslie Hanks
CRTL V.P.
June 16, 2008

Colorado Right To Life is warning Dick Wadhams, the state Republican Party chairman, that by shunning their pro-life conservative base they're headed for another election defeat in November, three election-cycle catastrophes for the Colorado GOP, and two U.S. Senate losses for Wadhams.

Wadhams banned the nation's oldest Right To Life organization from their state convention while he welcomed a pro-abortion group. The state's top Republican is out of touch with his own party's base, where 4 out of 5 Republicans at the convention voted to defend life beginning at fertilization.

The thousands of convention delegates passed all forty resolutions offered, except for the only one that failed, the pro-abortion Resolution #21. Convention rules require literature to be approved by the party chairman. Wadhams allowed the misnamed Republican Majority for Choice to distribute flyers quoting him about the Personhood Amendment 48 sponsors as "on the fringe of the pro-life movement, and they do not represent by any stretch of the imagination the hundreds of thousands of pro-life Coloradans."

130,000 pro-lifers signed the Personhood petition. Delegates overwhelmingly passed all uncompromising pro-life resolutions including the 78% vote affirming that "life begins at conception." 20-year-old Personhood Amendment sponsor Kristi Burton was elected among the top ten most popular of the 46 national delegates.

The Denver Post last week reported Wadhams' assessment (Wadhams: Dobson's lack of support won't hurt McCain, June 11, 2008) regarding conservative leader Dr. James Dobson's refusal to support the Republican presidential candidate. "Dobson's comments that he would not vote for the party's presumptive nominee, John McCain, won't hurt," and that the party should "avoid social issues," and the liberal ColoradoPols.com headlined their report about the state Republican chairman: "Wadhams: Dobson Is So Yesterday."

While social issues have motivated Republicans in every presidential cycle since 1980, Wadhams is more accommodating to pro-abortion lobbyists than to Dobson and pro-life voters. In sharp contrast, our own ColoradoRTL.org candidate questionnaire has identified many heroic leaders running for office. But Wadhams has moved U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer to the liberal middle, and he's trying to drag the Colorado GOP to the left.

The party's affinity for abortion supporters will be the straw that elects Democrat Mark Udall. Why would Colorado elect a pretend liberal rather than a real one? And this move to the left helps explain the Rocky Mountain News report that Bob Schaffer's convention speech received, "the loudest applause... when he criticized his own party."

Virginia's George Allen could have been re-elected as a Republican U.S. Senator in 2006 despite his infamous macaca comment. With Dick Wadhams as his campaign manager, Allen had only given lip service but did not significantly support their state's marriage amendment. Salon magazine reported "a popular sentiment" that defeat came "when Allen failed to make the anti-gay marriage amendment, which passed handily, a centerpiece of his campaign." Just before that election New Jersey's Supreme Court gave homosexual partners the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. So in the last desperate days of the campaign, Wadhams, generally inclined to avoid social issues, hoped to hitch his candidate to the values momentum. According to the New York Times, "In Virginia, the [New Jersey] court decision could not have come at a better time for Senator George Allen, a Republican whose campaign for re-election had been thrown off course... The Virginia ballot includes a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Mr. Allen supports it... 'It's an issue that's going to play a big role in the next 12 days,' Mr. Allen's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, said in an interview."

According to the Roanoke Times, "Less than two weeks away from Election Day, U.S. Sen. George Allen spent Thursday... making sure [voters] knew he supported a proposed amendment to... prohibit gay marriage." A bit late, no? The marriage amendment won by 328,000 votes, and Allen lost by a mere 9,000, squandering countless values votes because Wadhams restrained Allen from giving the amendment more than lip service.

In Colorado, Wadhams is begrudging 130,000 petition signers even lip service for Amendment 48, which is virtually identical to Schaffer's formerly claimed pro-life position, that personhood begins at fertilization. Now Schaffer is allowing the party boss to position the candidate's previous pro-life belief as a negative, so Schaffer, more than Wadhams, will be blamed for the Colorado GOP's third election strike out and game over.

* American Right To Life Action Blasts John McCain: Check out this ARTLA Presidential Voter's Guide at ARTL Action's website (click on the chart to see a larger version).

* Read this Stunning Last Post at TOL: Will Duffy and Jim Scofield teamed up to debate a couple of Republicans over at TheologyOnline.com. You'll want to read this stunning last post of the debate called Battle Royale XIII: Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain.

Post-show Note:
-McCain Rejects the Right To Life of the Unborn
-McCain Gives $100s of Millions to Abortionists
-McCain Kills the Tiniest Kids for Research
-McCain Rejects Human Life Amendments
-McCain Promises Judges who Reject RTL
-McCain Doesn't Even Seem to Truly Oppose Roe
-McCain and Palin Refuse to Enforce 14th Amendment
-McCain Funds Surgical Abortions

* Focus II: An organization at the domain name "AndThenYouCanKillTheBaby.com" doesn't want you to see the groundbreaking DVD, Focus on the Strategy II. You may want to check it out anyway!

Today's Resource: Have you seen the Government Department at our KGOV Store? We are featuring Bruce Shortt's vitally-important book, The Harsh Truth about Public Schools. And also, check out the classic God's Criminal Justice System seminar, God and the Death Penalty, Live from Las Vegas, and Bob on Drugs DVDs, and our powerhouse Focus on the Strategy resources! And if you subscribe to the BEL Televised Classics, you will see this debate on TV, since it is one of the many extraordinary programs that come to your home on DVD when you subscribe!
 

Nimrod

Member
Lets not forget Steve Curtis also said Sarah Palin should not be the president (if McCain were to die) because she is a woman.

It has been a while since the last time I heard Bob. Now I know why I left.

In Judges, Deborah was a prophetess, a judge and a military leader. And never once do we read it was wrong that she held these positions.
 

The Graphite

New member
Not wrong for her, no.

Wrong for us, yes. The Lord makes it clear that when women lead in high places, this is an indictment of the men in that society. If you want to so indict yourself, go right ahead and advocate for her to hold the highest office in the land.
 

Nimrod

Member
Not wrong for her, no.

Wrong for us, yes. The Lord makes it clear that when women lead in high places, this is an indictment of the men in that society. If you want to so indict yourself, go right ahead and advocate for her to hold the highest office in the land.

If no man is there to stand up, then YES I will vote for her. In no way will that "indict" myself. Not wrong for her, not wrong for me. And it will certainly will not be wrong for someone to vote for her.
 

The Graphite

New member
If no man is there to stand up, then YES I will vote for her. In no way will that "indict" myself. Not wrong for her, not wrong for me. And it will certainly will not be wrong for someone to vote for her.

If there is any acceptable male candidate available, then yes, it would be.
 

Nimrod

Member
If there is any acceptable male candidate available, then yes, it would be.

In Sara Palin's case the answer to that question is NO.
The two party system is the only choice you have. If you think a third party is viable then you must be a Bob Enyart die hard. Because third party canidates have not won anything in the past 100 years and it is not going to change. As the alien said to those who would vote third party. "You minus well just throw your vote away".
 

The Graphite

New member
In Sara Palin's case the answer to that question is NO.
The two party system is the only choice you have. If you think a third party is viable then you must be a Bob Enyart die hard. Because third party canidates have not won anything in the past 100 years and it is not going to change. As the alien said to those who would vote third party. "You minus well just throw your vote away".
Minus?


Uhm, anyway.... two party system is the only choice I have? That's funny, because I voted 3rd party rather than McCain or Bob Schaffer. So, I DID have other choices, didn't I? When you convince yourself that you don't, you're just lying to yourself. Delusion doesn't suit you.

One other thing. I guess it is you who is going to tell the world who is acceptable and who is not. lol.
No, the Lord did that when He explained how He feels about "hands that shed innocent blood." They certainly aren't qualified to lead us in the highest office in the land, that's for blessed sure.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
In Sara Palin's case the answer to that question is NO.
The two party system is the only choice you have. If you think a third party is viable then you must be a Bob Enyart die hard. Because third party canidates have not won anything in the past 100 years and it is not going to change. As the alien said to those who would vote third party. "You minus well just throw your vote away".
:rotfl:

Let me guess, you did this to make sure there was no doubt as to how uneducated you are?
 

Nimrod

Member
Minus?


Uhm, anyway.... two party system is the only choice I have? That's funny, because I voted 3rd party rather than McCain or Bob Schaffer. So, I DID have other choices, didn't I? When you convince yourself that you don't, you're just lying to yourself. Delusion doesn't suit you.


No, the Lord did that when He explained how He feels about "hands that shed innocent blood." They certainly aren't qualified to lead us in the highest office in the land, that's for blessed sure.

Might as well. Not sure if the alien said "minus well" or not.

Oh goody. You voted third party. Whippeee!! A lot of good that achieved. I think you are one delusional, if you think that will make a difference. (Which it obviously did not, and it will not for the rest of your life.)
I recognize there are other choices, like not voting at all. But I also know the winner will go to one of the two, which you have a problem understanding.
 

The Graphite

New member
Might as well. Not sure if the alien said "minus well" or not.
Might... as ... well. Good grief... :hammer:

Oh goody. You voted third party. Whippeee!! A lot of good that achieved. I think you are one delusional, if you think that will make a difference. (Which it obviously did not, and it will not for the rest of your life.)
I recognize there are other choices, like not voting at all. But I also know the winner will go to one of the two, which you have a problem understanding.

The win will go to whomever gets the most votes. If most people in enough states vote for Alan Keyes (which was a definite mathematical possiblity, btw), then Alan Keyes would be getting ready to be sworn in. The only reason Keyes didn't win is because enough people chose a total lack of faith and moral decency and voted for McBama or Ocain, instead. It's a free will decision for every voter, and there is not the slightest thing in biblical doctrine or the laws of physics that says one of those two people must win. The only reason it tends to turn out that way is because most people accept that mass delusion, and most people assume that most other people will vote for one of those two. It's a mass delusion that feeds off itself, nation-wide, and it is ultimately self-destructive as any massive lie always is.

You can choose to be part of the lie, or stand on faith and do the right thing. Take your pick.
 

Nimrod

Member
The win will go to whomever gets the most votes.

I agree with that.

If most people in enough states vote for Alan Keyes (which was a definite mathematical possiblity, btw), then Alan Keyes would be getting ready to be sworn in.

It is also mathematical possible for any other third party candidate.


The only reason Keyes didn't win is because enough people chose a total lack of faith and moral decency and voted for McBama or Ocain, instead.

I disagree. People were not thinking they lack faith or moral decency as the reason why they voted for who they did. I know that was not my reason, or other Christians I know.


most people accept that mass delusion, and most people assume that most other people will vote for one of those two. It's a mass delusion that feeds off itself, nation-wide, and it is ultimately self-destructive as any massive lie always is.

I guess you are saying I am delusional in thinking one of the two candidates will win. Hmmm lets see. I do not know the final count, but I am guessing McCain had roughly 50 million more votes than Keys.

I am not being delusional, I am accepting the fact that is how it works. Do I like it? No. But I would be lying to myself if I thought a third party could win the election.

Graphite you can keep on voting for third parties for the rest of your life and I doubt any would win. The two party system is what we have here. McCain chose Sara and I accepted that, and there is nothing in the Bible telling me I should not vote for her because she is a woman.

I guess you believe you would be committing a sin if you voted for a Pro-Abort like McCain. The way I look at is, I am selecting the lesser evil in the hopes the lesser evil will bring in more conservative judges.
 

The Graphite

New member
I disagree. People were not thinking they lack faith or moral decency as the reason why they voted for who they did. I know that was not my reason, or other Christians I know.
So, when you voted for an adulterous, anti-free-speech, pro-gay, socialist baby killer mass murderer... you were approving the candidate that matches your own (and you believe, God's) values?

Wow, that says a lot about your character.... and that's quite a confession, as well.

I guess you are saying I am delusional in thinking one of the two candidates will win. Hmmm lets see. I do not know the final count, but I am guessing McCain had roughly 50 million more votes than Keys.

I am not being delusional, I am accepting the fact that is how it works. Do I like it? No. But I would be lying to myself if I thought a third party could win the election.

Graphite you can keep on voting for third parties for the rest of your life and I doubt any would win. The two party system is what we have here. McCain chose Sara and I accepted that, and there is nothing in the Bible telling me I should not vote for her because she is a woman.

I guess you believe you would be committing a sin if you voted for a Pro-Abort like McCain. The way I look at is, I am selecting the lesser evil in the hopes the lesser evil will bring in more conservative judges.
The Whigs in the 1960s were morally compromised. In that conservative party, many abolitionists finally got fed up and abandoned the party, going for a third-party alternative. The result was that the Whigs died as a party after losing several elections, but the god-fearing decent people who left (including Lincoln himself) went on to form .... drum roll please ..... the Republican Party.

The Republican Party WAS the third-party choice a century and a half ago. That's how it was born. That is its legacy. And now, being increasingly compromised, it will die away and yet another rise in its place. Life goes on. Just a dead, rotting elephant on the side of the road, stinking to high heaven. All good things come to an end, except for the eternal blessings of Jesus Christ, Himself.
 

Nimrod

Member
So, when you voted for an adulterous, anti-free-speech, pro-gay, socialist baby killer mass murderer... you were approving the candidate that matches your own (and you believe, God's) values?

Wow, that says a lot about your character.... and that's quite a confession, as well.

Well your statement above and Lighthouse reply is typical of the Bob Enyart crew. Saying I am pro-gay and a mass murderer is really loony and not rational. When people speak of the loony right, I think of the people here like you.

I am beginning to wonder if you all are brain washed or something. It is frightening.


The Whigs in the 1960s

No that would be somewhere in the 1850s.

There are two things to keep in mind.
1.) Long time ago, things have changed.
2.) There were four parties, not three.
Lincoln gained 1,865,908 votes (39.9% of the total), for 180 electoral votes;
Douglas, 1,380,202 (29.5%) for 12 electoral votes; Breckenridge, 848,019 (18.1%) for 72 electoral votes;
Bell, 590,901 (12.5%) for 39 electoral votes

Keep in mind, the last time a third party won a state was over a century ago.

Good luck voting for those who agree with your every single belief, I bet they are harder and harder to find.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Good luck voting for those who agree with your every single belief, I bet they are harder and harder to find.
We don't vote only for those who agreee with our "every single belief." Only those who agree with us on murder. If you compromise on murder, where will you not compromise?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
I do not know the final count, but I am guessing McCain had roughly 50 million more votes than Keys.

I am not being delusional, I am accepting the fact that is how it works. Do I like it? No. But I would be lying to myself if I thought a third party could win the election.
We don't need a 3rd party to win the election to get a true pro-life president. All we need to do is to get enough Christians who actually fear God more than man to not vote for Republican child killers. Most elections are won or lost by a mere 1 to 3 percentage points. If our numbers can make up that small percentage that causes pro-abortion Republicans to lose, the Republican party will realize that they will never again win another election unless they give us pro-life Christians the candidate that we want instead of the candidate they keep trying to shove down our throats. But that will never happen as long as we can't get enough compromising Christians, like yourself, to repent and help us accomplish that mere 1 to 3 percent.

The way I look at is, I am selecting the lesser evil in the hopes the lesser evil will bring in more conservative judges.
With a total of zero judges on the Supreme Court who believe in the right to life of the unborn, how's this plan of yours working out for you Nimrod?
 

Nimrod

Member
With a total of zero judges on the Supreme Court who believe in the right to life of the unborn, how's this plan of yours working out for you Nimrod?

From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/16/supremecourt/main2090280.shtml

Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the court, sparred in a one-hour televised debate Sunday with American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen. He said unelected judges have no place deciding politically charged questions when the Constitution is silent on those issues.

Scalia, 70, has consistently voted to limit the use of race in school admissions and has called for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to abortion to be overruled.

Judges are to do the job they were asked to do. Interpret the Constitution. If we get judges that do that (which are conservative by definition), then we would not have judges making law today.

Note: Knight thinks this is a minor issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top