What if you dislike ALL the candidates? Do you refrain from voting? Do you vote for the "lesser of two evils"? How do you know which one is the lesser of two evils? This question is open to EVERYBODY.
38 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The Republicans act like they deserve our vote because of Obama's fiscal insanity, which will more than triple the national debt by the time he leaves office, but the Republicans just had 8 years under Bush and doubled the national debt. So I voted straight Libertarian on the Arizona ballot (which one receives early here). Surprisingly Libertarian candidates were running in about 2/3's of the offices.
I like that, John. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Someone recently said to me regarding the Republican and Democrat running for Governor, "One of these two people is going to be our next governor. So, which one would you rather have?" I don't see a difference between them. If you choose to vote for one over the other, you are voting for bigger government -- and you shouldn't be surprised when that's exactly what you get.
Meg Whitman's website says that she will institute workplace inspections for businesses suspected of hiring illegal immigrants. The inspections will be modeled after drug seizure raids. I could NEVER vote for this woman!
John, I wonder if those Libertarians are "true" Libertarians. For example, Glenn Beck calls himself Libertarian, and he couldn't be farther from it. Another example is Bob Barr, who was a Presidential Candidate from the Libertarian Party. He is the farthest thing from Libertarian, one can imagine. I hated it when the Libertarian Party embraced him. And then of course Ron Paul, although Republican, is for the most party a "true" Libertarian. How is that for getting off the subject. lol
I'm playing the devils advocate here. Do you think "devil" should be capitalized? Just kidding.
I think sometimes we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Nobody is perfect (unless they agree entirely with us. Joke) so no matter who you cast you vote for, you are voting for the lesser of two evils. Right? Surely, you have preferences and one candidate may do more harm than another. Like, who would you rather have-Obama or "W" again? At least Obama isn't ENTIRELY controlled by the Lobby.
"'Most polls show Republicans are set to gain control of the House and most governorships across the United States. Republicans are expected to win over 50 seats".
This only means MORE WAR, WAR, WAR, perpetual war!
Weather or not we want smaller government may be the question for YOU, but maybe that's not the question for ME. It's a little late for that, the tiger is already out of the bag. We won't EVER reduce the size of government in America. You can't go back, so you might as well quit wishing.
Good point, Carol (about some professed Libertarians not being true Libertarians). I knew I was probably not voting for the best person in some cases, but did the best I could with the time I had to consider the long ballot. Took me over an hour to vote, because on every office where a Libertarian was not running, I Googled both candidates.
I like some things about our governor, Jan Brewer: like she signed into the law that you can carry a weapon, even into a bar to protect yourself; but she also voted for a tax increase, so chose the Libertarian over her.
I have to vote for anyone but Meg Whitman. Having to deal with seeing her on television for another 4 years will do serious harm to my mental state. I'm already on the edge just after all the campaign commercials. Just imagine if she gets in and we have to see her all the time. I'll go nuts.
" I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."
Since it is claimed that government exists by the consent of "the governed", remove your consent by refusing to participate in the rigged game that is placed before you. I do NOT consent. I will not be legitimizing those who seek to use you for Soylent Green. I will not be asking that force be used against you just because you are in the "minority". Not on my behalf! I will not be voting.
I don't agree with comedian George Carlin. Though the choices may not be that great, I have the duty as an American citizen to do the best I can. Isn't voter apathy a major reason that our liberties keep diminishing? If every citizen is like the the frog in the boiling pot, where is that going to get us?
George Carlin again says if he doesn't vote, he's not to blame. Come again? He shares responsibility because he sat on his thumbs while the country was going down the tubes. I believe that if every citizen would do his or her best with what he or she has to work with, a great difference could be made. Not every politician is corrupt. To have a personal policy of staying home on election day is inviting tyranny. They don't call the American people sheeple for nothing.
NOW (after John's last two comments) we have a real debate going. I personally am undecided on where I stand on this. But waiting to be convinced. Libertarians in general probably say, "don't vote". I'm not yet convinced. Come on, somebody say something to finally convince me. I see John’s points! Now somebody needs to say something to counter them.
By taking part in this democratic process, even if you denounce the major party candidates and vote Libertarian or some other party, you are still fundamentally consenting that whichever party collects the most support for its platform has won the right to force it on everyone else.
One can't get that which he should most desire -- freedom and liberty -- from the government.
we do have the freedom not to vote. No one has yet drafted us into the voting booth. I suggest that we exercise this right not to participate. It is one of the few rights we have left. Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it. You might say that this is ineffective. But what effect does voting have? It gives them what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear.
Lisa said... I agree 100% with George Carlin, whoever he is. A couple people asked me if I voted and I said "no" and they used that stupid line on me, "Well if you don't vote you can't complain." And I said, "No, it's BECAUSE I don't vote that I CAN complain. You've seen that bumper sticker on my car that say "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul', right? Well I'm going to have another one made up that says 'Don't blame me, I didn't vote." I see Kan McManigal contributed his two cents worth. Would that be the real KM, or is someone quoting him? If it's really him, cool! He's a great thinker. And I see Lew Rockwell. These are all quotes, now I see. But still, good to know what they all think.
Lisa said... Excellent, Tavia! I disagree completely with everything John said in his last two comments. I'm just doing my duty to let you all know. lol. Sometimes one's duty is to do nothing at all, espcially when so many people are clamoring for something to be done. As far as doing one's duty by casting a vote, it's the same thing as saying, "I believe in the system, and think that government has/is the solutions to our problems." By not voting, if one purposely chooses NOT to choose between one candidate or the other, the non-voter is 'doing his duty' by not contributing to the destruction of the Constituion. Because every time you vote between the lesser of two evils -- and you know it's evil by its actions, which follow 'an agenda' instead of support the principles of the Constitution -- you are saying, "The system is more important than the freedom and rights of the individual."
Lisa, John wrote a thought provoking question when he asked, " Isn't voter apathy a major reason that our liberties keep diminishing? And to follow-up on that, Lew Rockwell says, "Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket..."? Do you really think the "powers that be" distinguish between those that don't care enough to be bothered to vote and those that are not participating because they want to send a message saying we don't want to support your system?
And jus think what an example of patriotism Ron Paul has been. If no one voted for him, he wouldn't have been in office and I personally think he has made a difference.
See Ron Paul knows he has to work within the system we now have in order to make any improvements in it. And look how many people he has influenced!! He may not like the system but it's the only one we have right now, so he uses it.
Lisa said... I'm not saying that you should never vote, but only when you know that the candidate supports and upholds the principles of the Constitution. And you're right, Ron Paul knows he has to work within the system, which is why he's a registered Republican and not a Libertarian. And that's not evil, because the modern repubs have strayed so far from the original Republican thinking that THEY'RE the ones who've become evil, not Ron Paul. No, I don't believe it's voter apathy that have caused our freedoms to diminish, because, imagine if every single citizen went and cast their vote, what difference would it make? It's still going to be between one candidate and the other. When there's two candidates and they're both trying to win because they want the power and prestige and glory that comes with being president, does it really matter if the whole country voted? There's still one of the two candidates that's going to take actions that destroy our freedoms. They do what the big guys tell them to do, not what the people tell them.
Tavia, those are the very ones I would be voting against. When Peter Schiff ran in Connecticut, nothing could have kept me home that day. (I watch every new video he comes out with and today enjoyed his nightly two hour show at schiffradio.com.)
Lew Rockwell says that not voting makes the politicians "a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent" - do you think those type of politicians really CARE what we think one way or the other? They would love that we don't vote if it keeps them in power.
All it takes is an apathetic, non-voting populace and an energetic Nazi-like group has a good chance to get in there.
If there's only two rotten scoundrels running, I'd stay home, but as a rule I couldn't make that my personal policy because elsewhere on that ballot there's likely some good, principled, hardworking candidates who really care and the least I can do fill out a ballot to support them.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."- Edmund Burke
Yeah, I know what you mean, John. The thing I put on Twitter was from the George Carlin rant. I agree with him on it for say, if you voted for Obama, then you can't complain.
If someone like Ron Paul or John Dennis had of been running in my district, I would have voted. I just didn't want to waste my time on these kooks like Meg Whitman etc. What is the point in that? The lesesr of two evils is still evil.
Also a few of the props I wanted to vote on got shut down by about 1 million votes, so I'm glad I didn't waste my time putting in my single vote. Now, had they needed one vote to pass, I would have been ticked off at myself. LOL
Tom Woods is one who is really good at pointing how ridiculous the 2 party system is.
I hear you, Tavia. Your comment that the props you would have voted for lost reminded me that Peter Schiff said today that NOT ONE candidate he voted for won. Imagine that.
John, I like that quote by Edmund Burke. I'm not through with this subject yet. Still thinking about it but ran across this by Thomas Woods:
“I realize I’m in the minority here, but I’m unconvinced that not voting is the obvious libertarian position. Here are my two main arguments: (1) You are not consenting to the system by voting. I can’t remember who it was who made this analogy (which I have modified slightly), but if you were in a concentration camp and you were allowed to vote on having either steak or human flesh for dinner, you would not be consenting to the system by voting for steak. (2) There is almost never anyone worth voting for. But if someone (like Ron Paul) promotes nonintervention abroad and the abolition of the Fed and the IRS at home, I will vote for that person…”
I thought of how to ignite this thread again. This may do it. :)
Medical marijuana was on the Arizona ballot and passed - I left that proposition blank, didn't vote on it one way or the other.
I know this is controversial, but here's why: I wasn't sure how God would want me to vote. I was torn. On one hand, I hate government control of our lives down to every last detail. But on the other side, the Bible says something like, "Woe to him that putteth wine to his neighbor's lips." If they make it legal, fine, but I didn't want the responsibility of having any part in it, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
Lisa said... The way I see it, the question of whether or not God would approve is irrelevant, because then you have to ask, "whose god?" In some Indian religious observances, tobacco is the thread of communication between humans and the spiritual powers. Some people use entheogenic drugs to make contact with the divine as part of their religious rituals. Cannabis is widely used in India by Hindu gurus and Middle Eastern sufis. Salvia Divinorum and psilocybin mushrooms ("Magic Mushrooms") are used in the Oaxaca region of Mexico. There's all kinds of reasons why someone would use marijuana -- religious ceremonies, medicinal, relaxation, to get high, to be creative, to see things from a different perspective, who knows --is it up to government to decide if those are moral enough reasons? When you mention the verse, "Woe to him that putteth wine to his neighbor's lips," that's not what you're doing you vote. Just because I don't smoke pot myself doesn't mean that my neighbor shouldn't be allowed to smoke it.
That medical marijuana issue is a good example and maybe one that supports the opinion of those who say they don’t believe in voting at all. It seems this is an issue that gives more power to the state. The fact is that marijuana, weather medical or not, shouldn’t be illegal. So by voting in favor of “medical” marijuana, you are in fact voting that only those people that have a prescription can use it, but not everyone else. So it is still limiting freedom. It also gives power to the state to tax it. Greedy, hypocritical bastards!!
Lisa said, Now THAT is a good point. In fact, it's really the only point, because all these issues we wonder if we should vote yay or nay on are actually just PERMISSION SLIPS we're trying to get from the government. Take, for example, gay marriage. People vote either yay or nay, but the underlying meaning in their votes is either "Yay, government should let gays marry" or "Nay, government should not allow gays to marry." HOW RIDICULOUS TO THINK THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE THE ONE TO HAND OUT PERMISSION SLIPS! Makes me angry just thinking about it...
Anonymous, you make a great point (So by voting in favor of “medical” marijuana, you are in fact voting that only those people that have a prescription can use it, but not everyone else).
They make these artificial issues and then give us the right to vote on them. I felt good about voting on every issue and leaving that one blank, refusing to be drawn into their game.
38 comments:
The Republicans act like they deserve our vote because of Obama's fiscal insanity, which will more than triple the national debt by the time he leaves office, but the Republicans just had 8 years under Bush and doubled the national debt. So I voted straight Libertarian on the Arizona ballot (which one receives early here). Surprisingly Libertarian candidates were running in about 2/3's of the offices.
I like that, John. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Someone recently said to me regarding the Republican and Democrat running for Governor, "One of these two people is going to be our next governor. So, which one would you rather have?" I don't see a difference between them. If you choose to vote for one over the other, you are voting for bigger government -- and you shouldn't be surprised when that's exactly what you get.
Meg Whitman's website says that she will institute workplace inspections for businesses suspected of hiring illegal immigrants. The inspections will be modeled after drug seizure raids. I could NEVER vote for this woman!
John, I wonder if those Libertarians are "true" Libertarians. For example, Glenn Beck calls himself Libertarian, and he couldn't be farther from it. Another example is Bob Barr, who was a Presidential Candidate from the Libertarian Party. He is the farthest thing from Libertarian, one can imagine. I hated it when the Libertarian Party embraced him. And then of course Ron Paul, although Republican, is for the most party a "true" Libertarian. How is that for getting off the subject. lol
Linnette you say you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils? Then when would you ever cast a vote? Or maybe that is your point.
I'm playing the devils advocate here. Do you think "devil" should be capitalized? Just kidding.
I think sometimes we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Nobody is perfect (unless they agree entirely with us. Joke) so no matter who you cast you vote for, you are voting for the lesser of two evils. Right? Surely, you have preferences and one candidate may do more harm than another. Like, who would you rather have-Obama or "W" again? At least Obama isn't ENTIRELY controlled by the Lobby.
"'Most polls show Republicans are set to gain control of the House and most governorships across the United States. Republicans are expected to win over 50 seats".
This only means MORE WAR, WAR, WAR, perpetual war!
Anonymous, you asked: "You say you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils? Then when would you ever cast a vote?"
My answer: I would cast a vote when I believe in a candidate's sincere commitment to stay out of my life.
Carol says that maybe one candidate may do more harm than the other.
Here's the question: Do you want smaller government? I do. I don't want to slow the growth of government. I want to REDUCE the size of government.
Neither of the two major candidates will be REDUCING the size of government. So, I say NO to both candidates.
I did vote on some of the propositions though.
Weather or not we want smaller government may be the question for YOU, but maybe that's not the question for ME. It's a little late for that, the tiger is already out of the bag. We won't EVER reduce the size of government in America. You can't go back, so you might as well quit wishing.
Good point, Carol (about some professed Libertarians not being true Libertarians). I knew I was probably not voting for the best person in some cases, but did the best I could with the time I had to consider the long ballot. Took me over an hour to vote, because on every office where a Libertarian was not running, I Googled both candidates.
I like some things about our governor, Jan Brewer: like she signed into the law that you can carry a weapon, even into a bar to protect yourself; but she also voted for a tax increase, so chose the Libertarian over her.
I have to vote for anyone but Meg Whitman. Having to deal with seeing her on television for another 4 years will do serious harm to my mental state. I'm already on the edge just after all the campaign commercials. Just imagine if she gets in and we have to see her all the time. I'll go nuts.
I'll vote for Nightingale
" I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."
Yeah, George!
Anonymous says: "We won't EVER reduce the size of government in America. You can't go back, so you might as well quit wishing."
I am inclined to believe that. Which is why I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. What good would it do?
Since it is claimed that government exists by the consent of "the governed", remove your consent by refusing to participate in the rigged game that is placed before you. I do NOT consent. I will not be legitimizing those who seek to use you for Soylent Green. I will not be asking that force be used against you just because you are in the "minority". Not on my behalf! I will not be voting.
Number of Americans who voted in 2008: 132 million. Number of Americans who didn’t vote in 2008, but were eligible: 80 million.
I don't agree with comedian George Carlin. Though the choices may not be that great, I have the duty as an American citizen to do the best I can. Isn't voter apathy a major reason that our liberties keep diminishing? If every citizen is like the the frog in the boiling pot, where is that going to get us?
George Carlin again says if he doesn't vote, he's not to blame. Come again? He shares responsibility because he sat on his thumbs while the country was going down the tubes. I believe that if every citizen would do his or her best with what he or she has to work with, a great difference could be made. Not every politician is corrupt. To have a personal policy of staying home on election day is inviting tyranny. They don't call the American people sheeple for nothing.
NOW (after John's last two comments) we have a real debate going. I personally am undecided on where I stand on this. But waiting to be convinced. Libertarians in general probably say, "don't vote". I'm not yet convinced. Come on, somebody say something to finally convince me. I see John’s points! Now somebody needs to say something to counter them.
By taking part in this democratic process, even if you denounce the major party candidates and vote Libertarian or some other party, you are still fundamentally consenting that whichever party collects the most support for its platform has won the right to force it on everyone else.
One can't get that which he should most desire -- freedom and liberty -- from the government.
we do have the freedom not to vote. No one has yet drafted us into the voting booth. I suggest that we exercise this right not to participate. It is one of the few rights we have left. Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it.
You might say that this is ineffective. But what effect does voting have? It gives them what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear.
Lisa said...
I agree 100% with George Carlin, whoever he is. A couple people asked me if I voted and I said "no" and they used that stupid line on me, "Well if you don't vote you can't complain." And I said, "No, it's BECAUSE I don't vote that I CAN complain. You've seen that bumper sticker on my car that say "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul', right? Well I'm going to have another one made up that says 'Don't blame me, I didn't vote."
I see Kan McManigal contributed his two cents worth. Would that be the real KM, or is someone quoting him? If it's really him, cool! He's a great thinker.
And I see Lew Rockwell. These are all quotes, now I see. But still, good to know what they all think.
I set my ballot on fire. If u vote & elect lying, incompetent politicians & they get into office & screw everything up, then u are to blame.
Lisa said...
Excellent, Tavia!
I disagree completely with everything John said in his last two comments. I'm just doing my duty to let you all know. lol.
Sometimes one's duty is to do nothing at all, espcially when so many people are clamoring for something to be done.
As far as doing one's duty by casting a vote, it's the same thing as saying, "I believe in the system, and think that government has/is the solutions to our problems." By not voting, if one purposely chooses NOT to choose between one candidate or the other,
the non-voter is 'doing his duty' by not contributing to the destruction of the Constituion. Because every time you vote between the lesser of two evils -- and you know it's evil by its actions, which follow 'an agenda' instead of support the principles of the Constitution -- you are saying, "The system is more important than the freedom and rights of the individual."
I hate it when people just say, "dont forget to vote" or they just randomly tell everyone "VOTE!"
If you are voting in favor of stupid crap or for candidates I dont agree with, I dont want you out there voting.
Lisa, John wrote a thought provoking question when he asked, " Isn't voter apathy a major reason that our liberties keep diminishing? And to follow-up on that, Lew Rockwell says, "Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket..."?
Do you really think the "powers that be" distinguish between those that don't care enough to be bothered to vote and those that are not participating because they want to send a message saying we don't want to support your system?
And jus think what an example of patriotism Ron Paul has been. If no one voted for him, he wouldn't have been in office and I personally think he has made a difference.
See Ron Paul knows he has to work within the system we now have in order to make any improvements in it. And look how many people he has influenced!! He may not like the system but it's the only one we have right now, so he uses it.
Lisa said...
I'm not saying that you should never vote, but only when you know that the candidate supports and upholds the principles of the Constitution. And you're right, Ron Paul knows he has to work within the system, which is why he's a registered Republican and not a Libertarian. And that's not evil, because the modern repubs have strayed so far from the original Republican thinking that THEY'RE the ones who've become evil, not Ron Paul.
No, I don't believe it's voter apathy that have caused our freedoms to diminish, because, imagine if every single citizen went and cast their vote, what difference would it make? It's still going to be between one candidate and the other. When there's two candidates and they're both trying to win because they want the power and prestige and glory that comes with being president, does it really matter if the whole country voted? There's still one of the two candidates that's going to take actions that destroy our freedoms. They do what the big guys tell them to do, not what the people tell them.
Tavia, those are the very ones I would be voting against. When Peter Schiff ran in Connecticut, nothing could have kept me home that day. (I watch every new video he comes out with and today enjoyed his nightly two hour show at schiffradio.com.)
Lew Rockwell says that not voting makes the politicians "a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent" - do you think those type of politicians really CARE what we think one way or the other? They would love that we don't vote if it keeps them in power.
All it takes is an apathetic, non-voting populace and an energetic Nazi-like group has a good chance to get in there.
If there's only two rotten scoundrels running, I'd stay home, but as a rule I couldn't make that my personal policy because elsewhere on that ballot there's likely some good, principled, hardworking candidates who really care and the least I can do fill out a ballot to support them.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."- Edmund Burke
Yeah, I know what you mean, John. The thing I put on Twitter was from the George Carlin rant. I agree with him on it for say, if you voted for Obama, then you can't complain.
If someone like Ron Paul or John Dennis had of been running in my district, I would have voted. I just didn't want to waste my time on these kooks like Meg Whitman etc. What is the point in that? The lesesr of two evils is still evil.
Also a few of the props I wanted to vote on got shut down by about 1 million votes, so I'm glad I didn't waste my time putting in my single vote. Now, had they needed one vote to pass, I would have been ticked off at myself. LOL
Tom Woods is one who is really good at pointing how ridiculous the 2 party system is.
I hear you, Tavia. Your comment that the props you would have voted for lost reminded me that Peter Schiff said today that NOT ONE candidate he voted for won. Imagine that.
John, I like that quote by Edmund Burke. I'm not through with this subject yet. Still thinking about it but ran across this by Thomas Woods:
“I realize I’m in the minority here, but I’m unconvinced that not voting is the obvious libertarian position. Here are my two main arguments:
(1) You are not consenting to the system by voting. I can’t remember who it was who made this analogy (which I have modified slightly), but if you were in a concentration camp and you were allowed to vote on having either steak or human flesh for dinner, you would not be consenting to the system by voting for steak.
(2) There is almost never anyone worth voting for. But if someone (like Ron Paul) promotes nonintervention abroad and the abolition of the Fed and the IRS at home, I will vote for that person…”
I thought of how to ignite this thread again. This may do it. :)
Medical marijuana was on the Arizona ballot and passed - I left that proposition blank, didn't vote on it one way or the other.
I know this is controversial, but here's why: I wasn't sure how God would want me to vote. I was torn. On one hand, I hate government control of our lives down to every last detail. But on the other side, the Bible says something like, "Woe to him that putteth wine to his neighbor's lips." If they make it legal, fine, but I didn't want the responsibility of having any part in it, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
Lisa said...
The way I see it, the question of whether or not God would approve is irrelevant, because then you have to ask, "whose god?" In some Indian religious observances, tobacco is the thread of communication between humans and the spiritual powers. Some people use entheogenic drugs to make contact with the divine as part of their religious rituals.
Cannabis is widely used in India by Hindu gurus and Middle Eastern sufis. Salvia Divinorum and psilocybin mushrooms ("Magic Mushrooms") are used in the Oaxaca region of Mexico.
There's all kinds of reasons why someone would use marijuana -- religious ceremonies, medicinal, relaxation, to get high, to be creative, to see things from a different perspective, who knows --is it up to government to decide if those are moral enough reasons?
When you mention the verse, "Woe to him that putteth wine to his neighbor's lips," that's not what you're doing you vote. Just because I don't smoke pot myself doesn't mean that my neighbor shouldn't be allowed to smoke it.
That medical marijuana issue is a good example and maybe one that supports the opinion of those who say they don’t believe in voting at all. It seems this is an issue that gives more power to the state. The fact is that marijuana, weather medical or not, shouldn’t be illegal. So by voting in favor of “medical” marijuana, you are in fact voting that only those people that have a prescription can use it, but not everyone else. So it is still limiting freedom. It also gives power to the state to tax it. Greedy, hypocritical bastards!!
Lisa said,
Now THAT is a good point. In fact, it's really the only point, because all these issues we wonder if we should vote yay or nay on are actually just PERMISSION SLIPS we're trying to get from the government. Take, for example, gay marriage. People vote either yay or nay, but the underlying meaning in their votes is either "Yay, government should let gays marry" or "Nay, government should not allow gays to marry."
HOW RIDICULOUS TO THINK THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE THE ONE TO HAND OUT PERMISSION SLIPS!
Makes me angry just thinking about it...
Lisa said...
The way I see it, the question of whether or not God would approve is irrelevant
Not to me though. Whether God approves of how I vote is important to me.
Anonymous, you make a great point (So by voting in favor of “medical” marijuana, you are in fact voting that only those people that have a prescription can use it, but not everyone else).
They make these artificial issues and then give us the right to vote on them. I felt good about voting on every issue and leaving that one blank, refusing to be drawn into their game.
Post a Comment