TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

Photoman wrote:Not voting is an insult to the memory of those that risked all, some losing all.

I just wanted to point out my disagreement with this statement. Not voting because you are lazy, ignorant, or busy may be an insult. Not voting because there is not a candidate you could support is a reasoned and proper choice. It is a form of voting called an abstention and we all have that right, also. "I abstain" is always recognized as an allowable vote.

Given some of our political candidates and choices, I abstain from several races.

that attitude may be the moral high ground, but it often allows the worst of the worst to gain sufficient power to place those "lifetime appointees" into places that will affect this country for a couple of generations, or more. It's your right to "abstain", sit at home, forget it was election day, or whatever, but if you really don't like what's happening with the party of your choice then get involved on the local level, or state level. Make your voice heard. It took me several election cycles, actually into the Regan years, to realize the sheer magnitude of "party politics". I'm not ashamed to admit that I've become a "one lever voter"... and I do NOT miss a chance to visit the voting booth. (I better not miss a trip since my wife is our precinct election judge )

srothstein wrote:

Photoman wrote:Not voting is an insult to the memory of those that risked all, some losing all.

I just wanted to point out my disagreement with this statement. Not voting because you are lazy, ignorant, or busy may be an insult. Not voting because there is not a candidate you could support is a reasoned and proper choice. It is a form of voting called an abstention and we all have that right, also. "I abstain" is always recognized as an allowable vote.

Given some of our political candidates and choices, I abstain from several races.

Does it bother anyone else that we do not have a small government party any more?

Frost wrote:Does it bother anyone else that we do not have a small government party any more?

We have several, but they're small parties.

BTW, referring to some earlier messages, you can cast a ballot without voting for a candidate in every position. I have done that many times. There have been intermittent movements to write in "none of the above."

- Jim

Frost wrote:Does it bother anyone else that we do not have a small government party any more?

There is the Libertarians.

srothstein wrote:

Photoman wrote:Not voting is an insult to the memory of those that risked all, some losing all.

I just wanted to point out my disagreement with this statement. Not voting because you are lazy, ignorant, or busy may be an insult. Not voting because there is not a candidate you could support is a reasoned and proper choice. It is a form of voting called an abstention and we all have that right, also. "I abstain" is always recognized as an allowable vote.

Given some of our political candidates and choices, I abstain from several races.

I don't like the idea of not voting as it gives the impression of apathy. Maybe we should force the option of a write in candidate on each ballot.

KBCraig wrote:

Stupid wrote:Ron Paul

Constitution.

'Nuff said.

I generally like Ron Paul. If he stopped puliing a "Joe Horn" and saying I'll kill the FBI, CIA, DHS, public school, etc..that is a whole lotta change.
Even if it is a grand idea, it will be what ends up costing him the election.

lawrnk wrote:I generally like Ron Paul. If he stopped puliing a "Joe Horn" and saying I'll kill the FBI, CIA, DHS, public school, etc..that is a whole lotta change.
Even if it is a grand idea, it will be what ends up costing him the election.

Yeah, probably. Just like his stance on that brothel that supposedly endorsed him or his stance on drugs. But that is precisely why I admire and support him. He has NEVER said anything just to get elected and he is very consistent in his stance. If he stopped doing those things, he just wouldn't be Ron Paul.