I typically vote for a strong third party candidate or else "None of the Above." Some may say that is a wasted vote, but I usually respond that a vote for a Republocrat is even worse. Besides, Illinois is hardly a swing state. I hate to be cynical but NOT VOTING for one of the two leading candidates is the ONLY way my vote will actually count for anything.
It's looking like we will have to get used to the idea of a President Obama so I watched the final debate with a critical eye to try to get a picture of what that will be like. It is no secret that the Illinois Senator is well-spoken. I found him to be intelligent and believe he can certainly lead the nation. I would prefer someone with more experience, but when it comes down to it what other experience compares to being President of the United States of America?
So it comes down to one basic idea. And I am afraid it is a deal breaker.
The context: Senator McCain attacked Obama's health care plan by saying that companies that did not provide this coverage would be fined. Senator Obama corrected him, stating that the fine would only apply to larger companies "that could afford it." I had almost forgotten I had heard him use similar language before when talking about his tax plan (regarding those who make "more than $250k/year" and can "afford it").
The problem: No one - no man, no woman, no special interest group, no church leaders, and especially no government - has the right to tell me what I can and cannot "afford." It does not matter what your motivations are. This type of thinking is evil and threatens the very core of freedom.
A mugger on the street might decide you can afford to give your wallet to him. He uses a gun; a politician uses his position. You might sleep better at night thinking there is a difference but how can there be a difference? Using power to take what is not yours is wrong no matter how you look at it. The whole purpose of government is to protect us from thugs with guns. If our leaders are going to act the same way then why even bother?
By allowing those words (of who "can afford it") to carelessly flow in our political discussions we illustrate we have no concept of right and wrong. And yet this belief system is embedded in the foundation of the Democratic Party. Senator Obama has illustrated why he belongs to that party and why I cannot vote for or in any way support him.
I find it very hard to actually publish this post. Most of my friends are Obama supporters. I understand what they like about him. I thought about not writing this at all. I decided that staying silent against a threat is just as bad as condoning it. I know they won't see the truth in what I am saying and if that means the end of some friendships then I will be sad. Ultimately I would rather mourn the loss of a few friendships than the loss of my integrity.
----------------
Now playing: Rush - Malignant Narcissism
via FoxyTunes
It's looking like we will have to get used to the idea of a President Obama so I watched the final debate with a critical eye to try to get a picture of what that will be like. It is no secret that the Illinois Senator is well-spoken. I found him to be intelligent and believe he can certainly lead the nation. I would prefer someone with more experience, but when it comes down to it what other experience compares to being President of the United States of America?
So it comes down to one basic idea. And I am afraid it is a deal breaker.
The context: Senator McCain attacked Obama's health care plan by saying that companies that did not provide this coverage would be fined. Senator Obama corrected him, stating that the fine would only apply to larger companies "that could afford it." I had almost forgotten I had heard him use similar language before when talking about his tax plan (regarding those who make "more than $250k/year" and can "afford it").
The problem: No one - no man, no woman, no special interest group, no church leaders, and especially no government - has the right to tell me what I can and cannot "afford." It does not matter what your motivations are. This type of thinking is evil and threatens the very core of freedom.
A mugger on the street might decide you can afford to give your wallet to him. He uses a gun; a politician uses his position. You might sleep better at night thinking there is a difference but how can there be a difference? Using power to take what is not yours is wrong no matter how you look at it. The whole purpose of government is to protect us from thugs with guns. If our leaders are going to act the same way then why even bother?
By allowing those words (of who "can afford it") to carelessly flow in our political discussions we illustrate we have no concept of right and wrong. And yet this belief system is embedded in the foundation of the Democratic Party. Senator Obama has illustrated why he belongs to that party and why I cannot vote for or in any way support him.
I find it very hard to actually publish this post. Most of my friends are Obama supporters. I understand what they like about him. I thought about not writing this at all. I decided that staying silent against a threat is just as bad as condoning it. I know they won't see the truth in what I am saying and if that means the end of some friendships then I will be sad. Ultimately I would rather mourn the loss of a few friendships than the loss of my integrity.
----------------
Now playing: Rush - Malignant Narcissism
via FoxyTunes
Posts
1 comment:
I to vote third party. I wonder why your friends would even consider voting for Obama? If they are liberal then he is a poor choice for them. He wants to expand the war in Afghanistan, and build more coal power plants.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. I agree a waisted vote is casting it like a sheep for a Republican or Democrat.
Post a Comment