Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

I Think I Might Vote Hopeless Again

Posted by Bob on October 8th, 2004 under Politics


When the polls had Kerry ahead right after the Democratic Convention, I told you in WhitakerOnline that I didn’t think Kerry stood a chance of beating Bush. My reason is simply that I know too much about inside politics to think that Clinton will let him win.

I am usually right about politics, or I couldn’t have made a living at it.

I don’t see any important difference between Kerry and Bush, so I tend to prefer Bush because he has the right enemies.

But in the debates one issue comes up that is critically important to me: stem-cell research. I cannot vote for anyone who opposes EMBRYONIC stem-cell research because it puts an abstract theological concept up against human beings.

I like Pat Buchanan personally. I like his belated defense of the survival of the white race. But in his best-selling book on that subject, he lamely concluded that the way the white race might survive is by getting religion.

Pat retains his respectability because, when any issue gets hot, he can be relied on to retreat into being an irrelevant nutcase theologue.

My wild-eyed support of Buchanan collapsed in the election when he announced that he didn’t believe in evolution because he didn’t want to be descended from a monkey.

There are lots of reasons to question evolution, but no grown man says something like that, much less a man who could be president.

In 1800 when every preacher in London opposed vaccination because the Bible says the body is the temple of the soul and cow germs should not be introduced into it, they may well have been been perfectly right theologically. They were NOT right according to the Golden Rule, which overrules theology.

Instead of saving unborn babies, an area in which I have a lot of REAL accomplishments, the “Pro-Life” movement has abandoned the field. If those who value theocratic theory over human life had won, the exceptions for rape and incest would have been removed from legislation.

There is one little problem with that great theocratic victory: all that legislation would have been defeated. That is why my pro-life boss kept putting it back in.

No one in the purely theocratic wing of the Pro-Life Movement was the least bit worried about the millions of actual babies who would have been aborted if that legislation had been defeated. I talked to them. They wanted to win a theoretical victory, kids be damned.

I would like to be with the rest of you on these issues, but I have just been too close to the real thing.

When someone talks about the leftist National Council of Churches, I saw and SMELLED the death of whole villages they helped cause by their “humanitarian” support of Communist terrorists.

When someone gives me the theory and the Word of the Lord on legislation, I remember those self-styled Pro-Lifers who cared nothing for real unborn children. The kind of Pro-Lifers who are shouting about stem-cell research today have that same kind of mentality.

I remember when that type of Pro-Lifer was fighting to ban in vitro fertilization, because several embryos have to be created and die for each human being who lives.

They, too, argued that not one child had yet been born from in vitro, just as those opposing embryonic stem-cell research say no one has been cured by it yet.

When they shouted that several embryos had to die for each child, I also remembered that for every human being who has been on this earth, several fertilized embryos had to die in the natural process of human reproduction.

There are well over 30,000 people alive today because we beat that ban on in vitro fertilization. The fact is that no one who opposes embryonic stem cell research today could wish those 30,000 people to be alive today.

It is the SAME argument. The Pro-Lifers have conveniently forgotten about their attempt to ban in vitro fertilization because if it were brought up today it would show what callous fools they were.

I know Bush will win, but on that issue alone I wish he would not.

Share it now. Like it while you're at it.
  1. #1 by H.S. on 10/08/2004 - 11:29 pm

    The reason you are wrong about your conclusions concerning both Bush’s opposition and the issues surrounding embryo research is because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Bush OK’d the research and the idiot universities suck down taxpayer money and flush it down ratholes while real researchers are having success with the best sources of human cells, non-embyronic.

    Like you said you’re into politics and made your living at it. You need to tap some resources that you have and be willing to accept the truth and not a bunch of propaganda hype.

    So write about why it is “critically important to me.”

    H.S.

  2. #2 by Bob on 10/09/2004 - 11:43 am

    Would you outlaw in vitro fertilization?

    It’s the same argument.

  3. #3 by H.S. on 10/09/2004 - 2:16 pm

    Yes.

  4. #4 by Richard L. Hardison on 10/09/2004 - 10:00 pm

    I agree with H.S. I would outlaw in vitro.

    The “golden rule” does not over rule theology as it is part of theology. The golden rule would forbid in viro fertilization just as it would killing a child for his liver so one of Ted Kennedy’s toadies could live “a full productive life.”

  5. #5 by Hank Parnell on 10/10/2004 - 10:04 pm

    I do love the Theologically Correct. They can justify anything. As Twain said, the Bible contains “some magnificent poetry, a few good morals, and upwards of a THOUSAND LIES.”

    Amen.

    But, at least Bush hasn’t ratified Kyoto — yet. That thing is Pure Poison. So I guess it’s junk theology vs. junk science. And they call this a “choice.”

  6. #6 by Scrivener on 03/05/2010 - 12:22 am

    I don’t see any important difference between Kerry and Bush, so I tend to prefer Bush because he has the right enemies.

    This is often how I choose which candidate I will vote for (with today’s poltical mess, SUPPORT is too strong a term). For example, I know my local newspaper hates White Americans. Therefore, if I don’t know anything at all about an election, I can be reasonably sure that I am at least choosing the lesser of two not-so-goods by going with the guy that the newspaper DOESN’T like.

    Now, beyond enemies, another indicator to me has been the kind of PEOPLE who support a candidate or party. I’m not talking about abstract talking heads being paid for their opinion, I’m talking about the kind of people you meet at work and school.

    Back when I was still a half-awake conservative under the effects of brainwashing, the reason I WAS a conservative is because I LIKED conservative VOTERS more. I had spent x number of years in school around liberal voters and knew that they were not friendly to America or Americans. At least, not Americans who founded this country.

    Conservatives on the street are tend to be more sensible, down to earth, and, more importantly, didn’t look down on me because I was born here and thought that should give me a say in how things are run. Now, if we can only get more of these people to think CONSCIOUSLY in racial terms… on the other hand, given Limbaugh’s sudden flip on illegal immigration (anyone remember that?), maybe more of them do than we assume…

Comments are closed.