On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unless, of course, your voting of your ideals results in them being taken > away.
Ideals are given up, they can't be taken away. Perhaps you mean "rights". That is a stickier issue of course, I would argue that both candidates we have to choose from pose a real threat of taking away rights. So then, who should I vote for? The one that will take away the least rights, or the rights I care about least? Because they are all pretty precious to me, even the ones that I don't exercise on a regular basis. > The only way to fix the current system is from within. If you vote for > someone who has no chance of winning, you are doing nothing to make this a > better country; you're just complaining, but unwilling to help. > If you vote for someone who has no chance of winning, you have no right to > complain about the winner, because you did not take the opportunity given > you to effect the outcome. Tell that to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison. There are other ways to change the system. I am not one to advocate bloody revolution. But the options you want to limit people to are what lead to revolutions. I hate having to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich over and over. Therefore I go with option C that I research and find that I agree with enough to earn my vote. And then you blame people like me for the fact that you keep choosing a douche or a turd sandwich? Are you crazy? I absolutely have the right to complain about the policies of a politician whether or not I voted for them or their primary opponent, or a 3rd party candidate that I actually agreed with. The 1st amendment is not limited to people that vote Democrat or Republican. I am sorry if this sounds angry, but your arrogance makes my blood boil. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
