Am I a bad American...or facing a common dilema?

we may miss the opportunity to build strong leadership in Congress.
Click to expand...
gc70 you don't know how really scary that is! Glenn Beck the comedian pointed out the obvious. He observed that if for some reason Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Ms. Pelosi suddenly died then Robert "KKK" Byrd would be the president. Think about that long and hard. :eek:
 
I'll be voting for Ron Paul in 2008. If I can't check the box, I'll write in his name. Voting for the lesser of two evils is no longer something I'm willing to show up for. Vote your conscience no matter what, or you will never be heard.
 
I'll be voting for Ron Paul in 2008. If I can't check the box, I'll write in his name. Voting for the lesser of two evils is no longer something I'm willing to show up for. Vote your conscience no matter what, or you will never be heard.
Click to expand...

At least you're voting. Politicians notice votes like that, and it will make an impact. Unlike staying home.

If I truly felt there were no advantage to either of the major candidates, I would do the same. I haven't yet, but I fear there will come a time in future elections when it will be that bad.

So why would I vote for Mitt or a Rudy when I will have to hold my nose a bit? Simple ... bottom line is, more bad things will happen with Hillary or Obama, IMHO, than with a Mitt or Rudy.

And the less bad things that happen the better.

But if you honestly don't feel there's an advantage with either ... then I truly commend you for still making yourself heard. And commend everyone who writes in a vote for whomever to let the powers that be know they're not getting the job done.
 
So why would I vote for Mitt or a Rudy when I will have to hold my nose a bit? Simple ... bottom line is, more bad things will happen with Hillary or Obama, IMHO, than with a Mitt or Rudy.
Click to expand...

Consider:

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it. You have free speech so I can be heard."
-- Rudy Giuliani, April 20, 1998

Compare that with:

"Freedom is Slavery."
-- 1984, George Orwell

"Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference."
--Ron Paul


I don't really like any of the candidates. But I especially won't vote for anyone so authoritarian. Several politicians (R and D) have already demonstrated that they're above the law by breaking it with impunity; I say enough of that. We don't need any kings in this country.
 
I'll be voting for Ron Paul in 2008. If I can't check the box, I'll write in his name. Voting for the lesser of two evils is no longer something I'm willing to show up for. Vote your conscience no matter what, or you will never be heard.
Click to expand...

Ichiro, this is what it's all about. FWIW, you have my respect. Very few things in life make me sicker to my stomach than a citizen staying home on election day or leaving the block blank....
 
It's not going to be really bad unless it Hill against Rudy. Then I might have to vote for the communist candidate on GP.

But I agree with the OP on one thing, it's looking bad.
 
With the choices we have now and the things going on all around us, I'm thinking that the America of the 1930's is going to come back to visit us

I'm not at all thrilled about any of the candidates, or where this country is heading.

I once heard a Babtist say "hate the sin, not the sinner". I'm not a very religious person, but I think I can apply that same saying to America today. I love my country, but I hate where its going, and what its doing.
 
...before we go to war, we need to know that 1. we were attacked or an attack is imminent (Makes it moral). 2. There is absolutely no other way (makes it the best economic choice), and 3. it is legal and by legal, Congress declares it officially and pledges the assets of the entire United States to achieve the goal, and 4. has a well-defined victory i.e.: Unconditional Surrender."
Click to expand...

Good post. Had our government followed the above ideas, we wouldn't have been in Korea, VietNam, or Iraq, because none of those countries attacked us. We went to war against them for reasons other than self-defense.

I once heard a Babtist say "hate the sin, not the sinner". I'm not a very religious person, but I think I can apply that same saying to America today. I love my country, but I hate where its going, and what its doing.
Click to expand...

Another good post. I'm old enough to remember the Viet Nam war, and then as now, I love my country but am not so keen on its government's policies. Big intrusive government is a problem no matter which party holds the Presidency, so don't think I'm just bashing Bush.
 
As for the republican side I fear we will have to choose between a preacher and a mormon. Neither of which I can support. A preacher swears an oath to god and the church above all else (am I to believe he will just ignore these deep convictions when deciding policy) and someone that willingly follows a religion as nutty and hateful as the mormon faith just creeps me out.

Well you could remember you have a third choice the kooky old guy or you could vote Libertaran if their candidate matches your beliefs.

I know things have to change or we are going to be headed towards third world status soon. Our banks are already in trouble, our currency is declining, we are starting to be considered a "risky" investment by other countries, our military is strained, our economy is propped up on thin and faultering legs, and the middle class is declining fast. Religion has been allowed to take to strong ahold of our political system. Evident in cases of abstinence only programs in schools and lack of proper sex education (which has had the wonderful result of teen pregnancies rates rising for the first time in sixteen years).

So why is voting for Ron Paul in the primary unthinkable? He has many of these same views. He will also stay out of your personal life unlike most of the Republicans. I would think that voting for someone against DOMA and for getting government out of the marriage biz could be a good thing.

So, am I a bad American for feeling like their is no good choice?


Nope. The good choices are few and far between and have been for years. In the past I have voted Libertarian every chance I get which makes me feel less like gagging than either of the two main parties but is pretty ineffectual at the national level with the way the system is rigged. Locally if their is no L on the ticket I usually vote for the closest thing I can find to a fiscal conservative with socialy liberal views. Most of the time that means both choices suck for one reason or another.

...or am I in the same boat as a lot of middle of the road Americans?


Yes you are and that's why I am voting for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the first presidential candidate I have ever in my life given money to. He is the first candidate I have campaigned for. He is the first candidate I have been 80% in agreement with who I thought might have an impact on our political system. (a small chance but a chance nontheless) I disagree with his stance on abortion but also see it as much more moderate and nuanced than most Republicans nationally. I think I disagree with his position on a hard currency but I am not very well versed on economic theory so I am willing to do some reading before deciding on that. I do know he has Don Luskin and Peter Schiff on board as economic policy advisors which appear to be fairly well respected in their fields and frequent talking heads on Bloomberg and other financial news programs. He is against many of the Fed bureau's I am. He opposes the WosDs as I do, he is against gun control and might actually try to repeal some laws unlike any of the other R's in the last forty years. On the whole for me he is the best choice of yet another lackluster group of presidential choices.
Here is an Oregonian site http://oregoniansforronpaul.com/ if you are interested.
 
Since we are talking opinion then, not making any value judgment on you as a human being then - Yes you are a bad American. Anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. No one with a conscience or even the vestiges of a moral compass should support any politician that they believe is evil or bad for the country. But that is what passes for wisdom or common sense or being realistic or being politically savvy these days.

Be a lot better country and world if people would start getting up in the morning, look themselves squarely in the eye in the mirror, then do what they know deep down is right - instead of doing what they want, doing the smart thing, doing the pc thing, or doing the selfish thing. Most people truly don't want freedom anyway, it means they would have to be responsible. Since deep down they don’t trust themselves to be or act responsibly they don’t trust others to act responsibly either.
 
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it. You have free speech so I can be heard."
-- Rudy Giuliani, April 20, 1998
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me too much if he said that. But, if he did, it's extremely creepy. Do you have a source on that quote?

As far as not voting, not sure how well that works. Only way you'd be sure to have an effect is if nobody at all voted. Nobody. In the real world all that does is let everybody else decide without you, like the others said on here.

So even if you have to write in a candidate at least you took part in the voting.
 
Since we are talking opinion then, not making any value judgment on you as a human being then - Yes you are a bad American. Anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. No one with a conscience or even the vestiges of a moral compass should support any politician that they believe is evil or bad for the country.
Click to expand...

"lesser of 2 evils" is a phrase. I don't think any candidates running are evil per se, meaning that in their own worlds they think they support what is best for America. But they all hold beliefs I believe are mistaken.

Even the bolsheviks in Russia were not "evil," they had a vision of a utopian world and were naive enough to think it were happen (though some of their leaders fit the definition of evil, the people fighting for them did not).

It's virtually impossible to have a candidate you agree with 100%. The best you can do is vote for the closest person, and hope your votes for congress will help offset the bad parts.

That's just the way it is in a democracy. Which is still better than the alternatives.
 
With Fred Thompson out, I predict that at this point I'll just be voting for whoever wins the R ticket. Not because I want to necessarily, but because I can't see myself voting for Hillary (even though I voted for Bill once) or Obama.

I'll be holding my nose as I vote, though.
 
Garand: They don't even bother with changing the constitution. There's no need. They control the public schools. Did you ever wonder how they needed a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol, but did not need one to ban Marijuanna (banned for the first time in 1951 IIRC)? They just do whatever they want. The 10th Amendment is an embarrassment to them.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough they got the ban on it through by a small nibble approach. The crack down came in the great depression as it was thought to be a great way to keep Mexicans out of the United States and away from the breadlines and a great way to crack down on what was seen as social deviants like Jazz singers who would mingle interracially. How did they do it? They used the requirement of a tax stamp from the NFA34 law and ruled that it was illegal to be in possession of the drug without one and you couldn't have the tax stamp until you had the drug. The nfa law really has been used as a way to screw people of rights ever since they got it into power, since they had no way of getting a constitutional amendment after the mess that was prohibition.
 
Religion has been allowed to take to strong ahold of our political system. Evident in cases of abstinence only programs in schools and lack of proper sex education (which has had the wonderful result of teen pregnancies rates rising for the first time in sixteen years).

This is a lack of parenting. Politics/Religion has nothing to do with teen prenancies. The "parents" who need their time alone are the problem. Don't want to take the bull by the horns, keep your pants on.

I almost voted for W but could not bring myself to do so because of his strong ties with energy giants

This is the same thing my Mom said. Spite the country because of a personal dislike of "oilmen".

Yes, you are in the same boat as all Americans. That is what makes this such a great country. We have the right to speak, we have the right to disagree, we have the right to make bad decisions, we have the right to do nothing if we so choose.
You, as an American need to decide what is the best for America, not for you personally.
Ralph
 
No good Presidential choices this time, I'm afraid. You say you're not sure Hillary is as altruistic as she seems. How altruistic does she seem?
 
Altruistic is .gov speak for selflessly spending other peoples money without looking back.

Obama is a Chi-town politico who was groomed to be the party golden boy, who is really more liberal than Hillary - read socialist nanny state - want to see his politics take a look at Illinois and Chicago - the only one with any real charisma in the bunch - if Hillary wasn't in the race he'd have the woman's vote sewed up - I know conservative women who voted for him for senator because he was so "cute "or "good looking." Has the 2nd most passionate supporters in the race next to Ron Paul, but has many many more of them especially college kids.

Hillary, well what really needs to be said - a socialist authoritarian nanny statist who has a mean streak. Has the third most passionate supporters in the race, not because they really like her, no one really does except perhaps bitter divorced soccer moms, but because she is a woman. May also have the cankle vote locked up.

Edwards - a injury attorney huckster and socialist nanny statist who loves his hair. No passionate supporters here, except maybe some hairstylists. Injury attorneys of course have no passion for him since one must have a heart to be passionate.

Giuliani - a quasi-liberal republican with a large dose of big brother government. No passionate support here either except maybe a few New Yorkers or ex-New Yorkers - like maybe George Steinbrenner.

Huckabee - a evangelical huckster who is really a soft social conservative and who believes in both nanny state and big brother state government - a few passionate supporters, people who like to cry in church and watch badly make christian movies and videos.

McCain - a grandstander - who loves political attention - who loves being called a maverick - who is loved by the msm and by conservative dems - and who believes in essentially nothing except political expediency and attention and who will go down in history as one of the great moderates in history like ..........? He is the republican parties version of a rhino Bob Dole. Some moderately passionate support amongst some moderates who like to think they are mavericks or independent thinkers, i.e. old fart grandfatherly types that have all the answers generally along the lines of don't rock the boat or I'll get sick besides who can afford to have principles, and we need an ordinance to make people take better care of their lawns.

Romney- a Rockefeller republican - at heart a social liberal as long as it doesn't raise taxes and is good for business - who is trying to run as a conservative. Luke warm passionate support amonst those who have no real opinion, who hate all the other candidates, and who identify with wanting to look better and be smarter than they really are. O'kay he does have some passionate support in the mormon community.

Ron Paul - an inept, non-charismatic libertarian who actually seems to believe in the constitution and individual liberty. The least electable because the vast majority of this country really love big government - either nanny statism or big brotherism - and who because he has the bad habit of telling the truth wins no friends - candidate most hated by the republican party faithful and establishment because he puts the lie to their faux conservatism. Liberals and moderates find him "kooky" cause they have no frame of reference to understand the idea of limited constitutional government. Has the most passionate and dedicated supporters amongst all the candidates though few in number - unfortunately this causes him to be hated even more - since his supporters are all the adults that used to be those geeky kids in school that nobody liked.
 
Limeyfellow and Garand Illusion,

It's OT for this thread, but you're both wrong about the history of cannabis prohibition.

It was done under the taxing authority. It was not part of the NFA, though the 1934 NFA did rely on drug war precedents from the earlier Harrison Narcotics Act (1914). The Marihuana Tax Act was 1937, and it was different from the Harrison Act and the NFA in that under both previous acts, you were being regulated if you paid the tax. You were not allowed to pay that 1937 Marihuana Tax. That makes it look an awful lot like the law was a flat-out prohibition, not a revenue raising measure or related regulation, and it would seem to be infringing on the police powers of the States.

Luckily for drug warriors and gun grabbers alike, the Supreme Court soon overcame that objection with the Miller decision, which said:

Considering Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), 300 U.S. 506, 513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising [p178] under the Harrison Narcotic Act [n2] -- United States v. Jin Fuey Moy (1916), 241 U.S. 394, United States v. Doremus (1919), 249 U.S. 86, 94; Linder v. United States (1925), 268 U.S. 5; Alston v. United States (1927), 274 U.S. 289; Nigro v. United States (1928), 276 U.S. 332 -- the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top