Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Can I take my vote back?

It looks like Hillary Clinton is deeply involved with the authoritarian theocratic Christian institution, "The Fellowship". Barbara Ehrenreich is fairly sound, and not usually an alarmist.

There's simply no excuse for a Democratic politician to have any more to do with these guys than with the KKK or Fred Phelps.

I wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstances, but if this is true, I don't think I could vote in good conscience for Clinton even if she won the nomination.

(h/t to James F. Elliott)

3 comments:

  1. Dear Larry,

    Please, for the love of no god, don't use your conscience when evaluating potential presidential candidates. That realm is nothing but Dracula vs. Frankenstein, with the honest observer always having to choose who is actually worse. McCain has all but promised to attack Iran and Syria if he is elected. In my view, that is bad enough to accept disgusting compromises to prevent his becoming the head of the executive branch.

    If what Ehrenreich has written about Clinton is true, and it probably is, then a Clinton presidency would be secretly influenced by a corrupt and autocratic religion. That would be bad. However, if McCain gets into the White House, his presidency would be openly influenced by a cabal of corrupt and autocratic madmen. And our pathetic excuse for a media would toady up to them like the disgusting lackeys that they are.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If what Ehrenreich has written about Clinton is true, and it probably is, then a Clinton presidency would be secretly influenced by a corrupt and autocratic religion. That would be bad. However, if McCain gets into the White House, his presidency would be openly influenced by a cabal of corrupt and autocratic madmen.

    Oh yeah. That makes all the difference.

    Maybe we should just drag the evil right out in the open where we can deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Larry,

    I meant that it would be better to force corrupt influences to act secretly than to allow them to act openly. It seemed to me that forcing them into secrecy would constrict their actions.

    But I see your point too. It may be better to have corruption visible than to have it hidden. Hopefully Obama will win the nomination, and allow me to escape this particular dilemma.

    Aaron

    ReplyDelete

Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.