ernielane at VERIZON.NET
Fri May 2 12:06:44 MDT 2008
> I agree. That actually is the crux of it. That is what I and all the
> other voters out there in wasted vote land are doing. What the Official
> Party voters refuse to admit is that our interests, like theirs, are our
> own to define. At least give us that much. You give the demmies that
> much, don't you?
> For example, it is not in my interest to cast a vote for a guy who
> promises to "cut" taxes when I have a candidate who will gutshoot taxes,
> drag them out behind the barn, beat the living shit out of them, set
> them on fire, bury the ashes and salt the ground. If the tax cutter guy
> wins, he might actually raise taxes (like George I), cut taxes and
> increase spending, or cut some taxes and raise others. We have been
> there and we have done that. So I am indifferent as to whether the tax
> cutter guy wins.
> Guns and money: MY two hot button issues. If the candidate is not in
> favor of unrestricted 2D Amendment rights and the abolition of ALL
> anti-gun legislation, including but not limited to taxation,
> registration, prohibition, and licensure, I don't care if he wins or
> not. Even if the other Official Choice wants to grab more guns and at a
> faster pace. And if the candidate does not support a massive,
> gargantuan, Godzillian reduction in government spending including the
> elimination of ALL so-called entitlements, I don't care if he wins or
> not. If the candidate does not support elimination of the Fed and a
> return to some kind of value-based monetary system...you get the idea.
> These are my values. You may feel free to denounce them, call them
> extreme, or even agree with them, but they are MINE. Please do me and
> others who you think should be supporting the candidates most of you
> support only grudgingly and with "held noses" the honor of not defining
> our values for us, or instructing us on how best to secure them.
Perhaps my choice of the word "interests" was not the best. In a way,
everyone's _interests_ are the same, it's just that what they _think_
are their interests are different.
I just find it somewhat hard to understand why people vote for third
party candidates when the likelihood (perhaps certainty) is that the
candidate from one of the two major parties that is most inimicable to
their "interests" will be helped; and especially when "politically
aware" people do it. Now, I fully understand when, for example, someone
that has _no_ interest in politics does it. Think of the local stoner
that votes for some obscure candidate because he promises free drugs.
But for the guy that is interested in politics, I could understand his
not voting at all, but I have a harder time understanding how someone
can rationally vote for someone that not only has zero chance of
winning, but when a vote for that candidate increases the likelihood of
the major party candidate he most can't stomach gets elected.
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:42 AM, William White <wbbanjo at yahoo.com
> <mailto:wbbanjo at yahoo.com>> wrote:
> And this is the crux of it, Ernie. Like JD, my own brother is a
> Libertarian, and he does not get it either. Sad, really.
> I never said I was a libertarian, and in fact, I am not. But I'm not
> offended at being called one, and you owe your brother a whole lot more
> Oh yeah...I "get" it, I just don't want it. But maybe you don't "get" that.
> */Ernie Lane <ernielane at VERIZON.NET
> <mailto:ernielane at VERIZON.NET>>/* wrote:
> Actually, what I believe is that you should vote in such a way that
> _furthers_ your interests.
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
More information about the Rushtalk