Somebody actually voted for me today. I nominated myself to be a state delegate and somebody actually voted for me.
I gave a speech before the voting began. I said something like, "I'm Mario Thompson and I'm voting for a Ron Paul delegate because he's the only one who will stop the undeclared, pre-emptive, un-Christian wars!"
That's all I said.
Somebody actually voted for me today. I nominated myself to be a state delegate and somebody actually voted for me.
I gave a speech before the voting began. I said something like, "I'm Mario Thompson and I'm voting for a Ron Paul delegate because he's the only one who will stop the undeclared, pre-emptive, un-Christian wars!"
That's all I said.
There were about 90 people there in the room of Dixon Middle School. Many were quite old. Most were predictable Republicans, but there, I would roughly estimate, about 5 Ron Paul Republicans. I did form the opinion that only one person per family should represent each family. I believe this because many people have small children. It's more difficult, although not impossible, to attend a caucus for them than it is for an middle-aged or elderly person. I also believe having a simple primary, as opposed to a caucus, would be a good option. Anyway, I understand now why, until the 19th amendment, only men could vote in many states--they were representing their families. I believe this is more fair than our present system of suffrage if you're in a caucus state.
I don't know if I'll ever go to another Republican caucus meeting anyway. It's so pathetic. A young mother actually stayed until the end, with her infant, until around 11 p.m. I assume she stayed to support a pathetic Republican like Romney. Can you imagine making your infant stay uncomfortably out of bed just so you could support a Romney Republican? I can't believe anybody feels strongly about him as a presidential candidate. About half the caucus-goers were members of the Pioneer 1st Ward (of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), which means my precinct is apathetic, that people who do not belong to the Church are the worst sort of apathetic American citizens if they are willing to let others choose delegates for them. Maybe I err. Maybe they're all Democrats and they all attended that caucus. It could have happened.
I seem to remember Obama saying he'd get us out of the wars too...much easier said than done.
ReplyDeleteTalk is cheap when you're a politician, you can promise anything while running and then blame the previous administration for your lack of action. Obama is the king of doing this.
So are you implying that Christian wars are OK?
Hi Richard. Great to "hear" from you.
DeleteYes, I suppose so, but of course I mean wars carried out with certain criteria, not crusade-type wars.
Wars should be declared by Congress with a specific goal stated from the beginning, meaning wars should never be open-ended. Of course you are familiar with the old line "We are making progress, but there's a lot left to do." This is the same as saying, "We are going to do whatever we want."
The reason the president and congress do not declare wars anymore is they know what they are doing is unjustified. If they had to declare wars, they would have to be specific about their goals, the end-points. For example, "unconditional surrender" is an end-point.
If they exposed their true motives, the people might not support their wars.
Secondly, wars are un-Christian if a war is fought half-heartedly or without conviction. Wars should be ended as quickly as possible, with all force available brought to bear, including nuclear weapons. So if Canada decides to declare war on the US, we should nuke them into the stone age as quickly as possible, then go home.
Love, Mario
I have been encouraging mario to define what he means by un-Christian wars. I have had many discussions with him on this topic so I feel free to define what he means. In the scriptures, wars only occurred when a)God commanded it or b) people were defending themselves against someone who came to war against them. Only under these conditions could we have God supporting our war and giving us the help we need.
DeleteI can see his point on this. We were attached by Osama Bin Laden, a person, not by a country, and especially not by Iraq. How many soldiers had died or been injured in the pursuit of a seemingly endless war (vendetta).
Bush did pick a great time to declare war. The people in this country were too grief stricken and in the anger part of the grieving process that they didn't see a need to argue.
P.S. Mario, I have a bone to pick with you. You must have known I would after the comments about women and mothers. I will begin by saying that I agree that men used to only have the right to vote because they were representing their families. That being said, times have changed. I am proud of that mother for bringing her baby with her and I would have done the same if I could have. She was teaching her baby boy from a young age that it is important to be involved in the process and be aware of what was going on.
DeleteBoys learn a lot from their mothers about compassion and love and living in this world as a good person. What a wonderful foundation she has created for her baby. Also, if she a was able to keep her baby content then it shouldn't have mattered that he was with her. Would you have thought even less of her if she had left her infant with a babysitter so that she could attend? If I had been able to that night I would have been their with our children, not only to make my voice heard, but also to support my husband for his first vote.
Needless to say, I think you played the wrong card in this part of the blog.