Gary Johnson and William Weld are going to be participating in a CNN Town Hall hosted by Anderson Cooper tonight, and while I have strongly supported the Johnson/Weld ticket against the backdrop of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I would be remiss if I didn't at least try to depict the other side of the discussion.
So I have developed this list of 16 solid reasons why you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson (including some which explain why they shouldn't be allowed in the Presidential Debates).
1. Both Democrats and Republicans have shown that they are perfectly capable of governing our country without need for a third party.
If the last 35 years have taught us anything, it's that the two major parties know how to operate harmoniously for the good of the people.
2. When dealing with two extreme civic philosophies, compromise and middle-ground are rarely helpful.
Who would want to live in a world that tried to break people up into more groups than just "Us" and "Them"? That's crazy talk.
3. The goal of elections is to get one party or the other in control of all branches of government. Libertarians would only mess that up.
We don't need no stinking checks and balances.
4. The world needs to hear more of what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have to say about each other.
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of civilized political dialogue. I wish they'd tell us how they really feel already. If we could only get them on social media...
5. Mainstream media, in general, can be trusted to provide us with all options and perspectives, and they are merely leaving Johnson out as a benefit to us.
I mean, what else would their motivation be to leave out a third party candidate from most national polls, especially when those polls are the test of whether or not a third party candidate is allowed to debate? Save the conspiracy theories, the media is just looking out for us.
6. Both Trump and Clinton can be trusted to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Let's be real - you don't need to read it to get the gist.
7. Either Trump or Clinton would make a responsible and trustworthy Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military and guardian of its secrets.
How hard could it be? I mean honestly.
8. Lawyers like Clinton and tycoons like Trump understand the American way much more so than an avid outdoorsman, triathlete, Ironman, cyclist and mountain climber like Johnson.
Who hasn't hiked Everest, Elbrus, Denali, Kilimanjaro, Aconcagua, Vinson, and the Carstensz Pyramid? Come back when you've really accomplished something with your life, Gary.
9. Clinton and Trump, at 68 and 70 respectively, are facing retirement and need more money in the form of taxpayer-funded presidential pension plans.
We need to take care of our elderly. Social Security just ain't what it once was. I pity the thought of either of them having to tap into their retirement accounts.
10. Both Bill Clinton and Melania Trump are champions of moral fiber and will represent our country's family values well.
Come to think of it, I think it would be good to get those two together behind closed doors for afternoon tea sometime.
11. Dr. James Dobson didn't write a brief and vague endorsement of the rumor of the possibility of his conversion.
If Dr. Dobson isn't willing to go on record about Johnson's Lutheran faith, it doesn't exist. Obviously.
12. Balancing budgets simply isn't the American way.
We need a president who is personally familiar with either bankruptcy or hedge fund management ... hopefully both.
13. When trying to elect a president based on "making history", we should use gender, race, and having no political experience to speak of as criteria.
Third party candidates to the back of the line.
14. Who in their right mind would elect as president someone who, until this election cycle, hadn't hardly been heard of by anyone.
What's next? A community organizer?
15. Johnson holds a personal belief that prostitution is safer when it is legal and regulated.
Infinitely worse morally than owning a strip-club, or a casino in Vegas that accommodates prostitutes, and certainly worse than a candidate who prostitutes themselves to corporations in exchange for votes.
16. People love Income Taxes. And Property Taxes. And Sales Tax. And Taxes on Use. And Consumption Tax.
Reducing individual taxes is a terrible idea. It's the Federal Government that's having a hard time putting a roof over its citizens' heads, putting food in its citizens' mouths, paying its bills, its debts or its employees. The government needs our help.
That last one wasn't sarcastic. Just sad. Very sad.
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Why Pat Robertson Was Wrong...
For those that haven't heard, Pat Robertson recently made a pair of statements regarding the destruction in Haiti resulting from the 7.0 earthquake and it's tremendous aftershocks. Rather than paraphrase, please click the link below to be redirected to the most unbiased YouTube clip I was able to find showing what was said...
Pat Robertson's Two Cents...
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
In voicing my repulsion of Mr. Robertson's words to friends, on two separate occasions I was told that he was right to say what he said. While I value the relationships I have with these friends, I have to stand in strong opposition to their conclusion, because I believe that it reflects poorly on the heart and mind of those who belong to Jesus' church.
Pat Robertson is one of the loudest voices on the globe maintaining a Christian paradigm, and the strength of my response is directly proportionate to his elevated status and the representation he is of all Christians. My goal is to make sure that people know that not everyone maintains his over-simplified view of this catastrophy.
I won't lie. I'm stirred up about this, and I believe rightfully so. And if I'm wrong, I'm wide open to divine guidance and correction. Until then, I'll rant away. Rather than spend more time crafting another response, I'm simply going to use one I already released to a dear friend:
I vehemently disagree with the belief that "We should defend the truth of his words." Historical facts are far from the fullness of the truth. It's not that his words were ill timed ... it's that they were deplorably inappropriate coming from a man redeemed by grace. To be wholly forceful, his words were unbiblical. I stand on Luke 13. Please take the time to read it.
Also, it is worthy to note that I stand behind the words of Charles Spurgeon, a voice certainly more prominent than my obscure opinion. Here's a link for his commentary on Luke 13. Also a worthy read.
Jesus was asked what He thought about Galileans who were murdered and whose blood was then mixed with sacrificial blood as a warning to the Jews by Pilate. The common belief of the day was that bad things happen to bad and deserving people, and that the worse the punishment, the worse the sinner. "Those dirty Galileans deserved it." Racism mixed with legalism. How despicable.
Jesus doesn't tolerate that belief for one moment. He cut through their cultural bigotry and did what He did best ... show God to a people desperate to hear from Him. He sited 2 different recent events to dismantle their belief...
"Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate? I tell you no..."
"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you no..."
Do you suppose that those who were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina were greater sinners than anyone else? Do you suppose that the souls who were lost to the earthquake in Haiti were more vile offenders than anyone else who walks the planet? I tell you no.
It is appropriate, at times, to vocally oppose the voice of those prominent in the Church. Paul the Apostle did it without apology. Martin Luther did it at the cost of his own life. We have a responsibility to confront anti-biblical Christian ramblings, regardless of the mouth that those words proceed out of.
Did Haiti have a Vodou blessing pronounced upon their independence? I can't find it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Regardless, it's a historical fact that wouldn't affect my theology for the following reasons:
In Haiti, 80% of it's people profess Roman Catholic Christianity as their religion, and another 16% profess a Protestant Christian denomination. 50% of the population is said to practice Vodou (voodoo). Using those numbers, and the current projected death-toll of as many as 200,000 souls, here's how the simple math of the "God's Judgment" statement plays out...
80,000 Roman Catholics with no affiliation to Vodou perished
80,000 Roman Catholics who practice Vodou also perished
16,000 Protestants with no affiliation to Vodou perished
16,000 Protestants who practice Vodou also perished
8,000 people who did not profess or practice any religion also perished.
Normally in my posts I come across as smug and sarcastic, but I'm crying as I write this, because the numbers are sobering to me that I am overwhelmed. You see, I believe in a God that was willing to spare a city from destruction because of 10 righteous people. And I believe He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Me personally? I would rather do what the Apostle Paul did on Mars Hill concerning the nameless God, only in reference to Bondye the great but unknown and removed Vodou deity and try to instill hope in a place of desparation, eternal life in a place of so much death, and love to try to mend the grief they are facing. Have you seen any of the live broadcasts from Haiti? Have you heard the wailing in the background from those in mourning?
But what do I know, I'm just a man who once had a contract with Satan and who now stands forgiven as a child of God because of Jesus Christ.
Bad form Pat, bad form. Your "optimism" isn't welcome.
Pat Robertson's Two Cents...
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
In voicing my repulsion of Mr. Robertson's words to friends, on two separate occasions I was told that he was right to say what he said. While I value the relationships I have with these friends, I have to stand in strong opposition to their conclusion, because I believe that it reflects poorly on the heart and mind of those who belong to Jesus' church.
Pat Robertson is one of the loudest voices on the globe maintaining a Christian paradigm, and the strength of my response is directly proportionate to his elevated status and the representation he is of all Christians. My goal is to make sure that people know that not everyone maintains his over-simplified view of this catastrophy.
I won't lie. I'm stirred up about this, and I believe rightfully so. And if I'm wrong, I'm wide open to divine guidance and correction. Until then, I'll rant away. Rather than spend more time crafting another response, I'm simply going to use one I already released to a dear friend:
I vehemently disagree with the belief that "We should defend the truth of his words." Historical facts are far from the fullness of the truth. It's not that his words were ill timed ... it's that they were deplorably inappropriate coming from a man redeemed by grace. To be wholly forceful, his words were unbiblical. I stand on Luke 13. Please take the time to read it.
Also, it is worthy to note that I stand behind the words of Charles Spurgeon, a voice certainly more prominent than my obscure opinion. Here's a link for his commentary on Luke 13. Also a worthy read.
Jesus was asked what He thought about Galileans who were murdered and whose blood was then mixed with sacrificial blood as a warning to the Jews by Pilate. The common belief of the day was that bad things happen to bad and deserving people, and that the worse the punishment, the worse the sinner. "Those dirty Galileans deserved it." Racism mixed with legalism. How despicable.
Jesus doesn't tolerate that belief for one moment. He cut through their cultural bigotry and did what He did best ... show God to a people desperate to hear from Him. He sited 2 different recent events to dismantle their belief...
"Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate? I tell you no..."
"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you no..."
Do you suppose that those who were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina were greater sinners than anyone else? Do you suppose that the souls who were lost to the earthquake in Haiti were more vile offenders than anyone else who walks the planet? I tell you no.
It is appropriate, at times, to vocally oppose the voice of those prominent in the Church. Paul the Apostle did it without apology. Martin Luther did it at the cost of his own life. We have a responsibility to confront anti-biblical Christian ramblings, regardless of the mouth that those words proceed out of.
Did Haiti have a Vodou blessing pronounced upon their independence? I can't find it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Regardless, it's a historical fact that wouldn't affect my theology for the following reasons:
In Haiti, 80% of it's people profess Roman Catholic Christianity as their religion, and another 16% profess a Protestant Christian denomination. 50% of the population is said to practice Vodou (voodoo). Using those numbers, and the current projected death-toll of as many as 200,000 souls, here's how the simple math of the "God's Judgment" statement plays out...
80,000 Roman Catholics with no affiliation to Vodou perished
80,000 Roman Catholics who practice Vodou also perished
16,000 Protestants with no affiliation to Vodou perished
16,000 Protestants who practice Vodou also perished
8,000 people who did not profess or practice any religion also perished.
Normally in my posts I come across as smug and sarcastic, but I'm crying as I write this, because the numbers are sobering to me that I am overwhelmed. You see, I believe in a God that was willing to spare a city from destruction because of 10 righteous people. And I believe He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Me personally? I would rather do what the Apostle Paul did on Mars Hill concerning the nameless God, only in reference to Bondye the great but unknown and removed Vodou deity and try to instill hope in a place of desparation, eternal life in a place of so much death, and love to try to mend the grief they are facing. Have you seen any of the live broadcasts from Haiti? Have you heard the wailing in the background from those in mourning?
But what do I know, I'm just a man who once had a contract with Satan and who now stands forgiven as a child of God because of Jesus Christ.
Bad form Pat, bad form. Your "optimism" isn't welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)