i think it made the decision tougher.
it went something like this...
obama went first.
i like 75% of what he had to say and could personally identify with his desires.
i loved that he wanted not so much to develop systems to deal with our problems, but to find out what these problems are caused by and fix them before they become a problem.
yes it is idealistic, but i liked it.
i decided that he wanted the changes that i find most important, the 'greater good' if you will.
yes his abortion plan is skeptical and i don't like it.
but outlawing abortion doesn't solve any problems. and in fact can cause even more unwanted children in this world.
i am going to go ahead and say that taxing the more wealthy is not ideal, but if your going to raise taxes-they are the ones that can afford it.
as for national health-care. well, your talking to a gal who has racked up a few grand in hospital bills over the last 2 years. if i don't have money for insurance, how am i going to have money to pay those bills. what do you think i am going to say...
but he is right, we need to find out the source of the problem, and then implement the systems that will help people.
i like that obama stands for change.
i don't agree with everything. but agree with his motives.
so i decided i would vote for him.
i wasn't convinced, but I WILL VOTE and exercise my right.
and then mccain came on.
and he was a lot more absolute. i respect the hell out of someone who is will give some straight yes's and no's. (which might of been one of the only nights that he was that clear).
he has so much experience and has been through hell and back.
he does want to give me money for insurance.
and he cares deeply for america and our safety...so much in fact, that he will do whatever it takes to gain our pride back.
this is where i take 3 steps back.
i am not for war.
at all.
not to mention, our country has enough of our own problems. and this point brings me back to obama.
he is all for pinpointing OUR issues before marching overseas and fixing everyone elses.
i happen to think that is fairly biblical.
and at the same time, so is helping those in need...
so here i am back in square one.
i am telling you.
ron paul 08!
now i took the chance and layed out my true thoughts and feelings. so feel free to do the same. feel free to rip me apart and tear me down. it's fair game if i post it on a blog, right...
4 comments:
Some days, I decide that I'm not going to vote, or that I'm going to write 'Jesus' on the ballot or something like that. Because I'm fed up with politicians and the truth is...that no matter who wins, they will fail us. They wont keep their promises. They are human!
But, my biggest issues are war, foreign policy, immigration, and health care. I voted morally last time (ahem, abortion) but then I realized that the president can hardly affect abortion legislation and I want a president who can educate women, provide health care, provide adoptive services, and make it so that women do not feel that abortion is their only option (this is actually the job of the church, but that is a whole different subject). I believe that Obama is for America, but I also believes he takes the nations into account. Christ didn't come for America, He came for the nations. And I think its about time we opened our doors to the poor and the refugees and started doing good in other countries...and not just when oil is at stake.
So, I know this is long, but you said it was fair game. In any case, I'm voting for Obama (if you couldn't tell) but I'm taking him with a grain of salt. He's not perfect but I think he's a step in the right direction. The rest is up to the church...
Two things:
In terms of helping the "poor and refugees" and being "for the nations" as Lindsay ann said above, I think that is and can only be the churches job. The government can offer protection and perhaps some financial support but all their efforts are thwarted by power trips and bureaucratic red tape that act, not as quality control methods to give aid to deserving people, but as a weapon of strangulation. Non governmental charities and churches will always do more, or at least have the means to do more than the government ever could.
Secondly, being for the nations in a biblical sense is a lot different than being for the nations in a governmental sense. Christ was, and still is for the nations and their inhabitance because their eternal salvation is on the line and also because he was, and still is, building his kingdom. It is a pipe dream that the government would be "for the nations" just to be humanitarian, even if Obama is president. A humanitarian effort by a government should never be conflated with the advancement of Christ's kingdom, they are polar opposites. Their is a lot more to foreign policy than charity and humanitarian efforts.
Finally, Lauren, It should be noted that Obama is for war, as he made it pretty clear in the second debate that he would pull troops out of Iraq and begin a war in Afghanistan. We would be trading one war for another. Even if it is a more righteous war it is still a war.
Just some thoughts-- it is still a fair game right? Sorry to Lindsay ann if I came across a jerk, but a good comment, such as the one you left, always inspires more thought. Please let me know what you think.
Vote for Obama. He smokes. That's why I am voting for him.
Both parties will promise the moon and the stars..
Vote for who is closest to earth.
Post a Comment