Yes! You’re hiring someone to do a job, you’re not deciding on canonization.
I guess he is. I have never heard that he was Catholic until today and it says on several sites that he is a Roman Catholic. That’s a good thing for me to look into.
What I do is not vote for anyone. I refuse to vote for evil. A vote in any race beyond dog catcher in a small town is inconsequential. The odds are greater you’ll die in a car wreck on the way to the polling place than your vote making a difference.
Let you concience consider that hundreds of thousands of men gave their lives so that you could vote.
Hardly, they died to give us the freedom to vote or not vote. They died for to preserve or gain liberty for themselves and their families/descendents. We owe them for that; but we don’t have to vote.
It’s not just for the people who die to gain liberty for their families. We also owe it to the unborn children, the oppressed, the poor, the meek and the lowly. Simply not voting is saying: let the world have it’s way. By voting, you are at least attempting to bring mankind closer to doing God’s will on earth.
What soldiers are you thinking of and against what enemy? The British let us vote. No enemy of the US ever took on fought to take away the vote (most if not all had voting). In fact the only threat to Americans voting was the Union Army which did cause some Americans to lose the ‘right’ to vote.
That does not follow. Choosing the lesser of two evils philosophy is a false dilemma. Not voting is very much a legitimate option. I knew a guy who grew up in a communist country. They voted there. In fact the government not only encouraged but coerced you to vote. The more people voted the more legitimacy the communist government could claim. He refused to vote and for that suffered. Not voting in some situations surely is the right thing to do. I think it is very much a legitimate principle in modern America. If peaceful resistance is legitimate than surely the peaceful resistance to the voting scam is a worthy practice.
We have a moral obligation to guide our nation and our society into correct thinking and correct acting in accordance with God’s will.
I don’t think the British let us vote. If they did, it was not for representatives in a parlimentary or democratic government. Wasn’t that the whole point of the Declaration of Independance?
And yet, only two days ago, Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucuses by eight votes. This link (Wikipedia) shows a series of close elections – including seven ties! (The most recent were in 1994 and 2003, both in Quebec). The link lists a series of elections that were won by 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 votes.
Of course the British let us vote. Some positions were appointed like in the modern US with our many czars (from the Latin Caesar).
Why do you think that? The Empire of Japan had a parliament. Germany certainly did not have much in the way of elections after the Enabling Act. I’m not sure Germany wanted to conquer the US though. They would not have had any chance of success so them fighting to take away our vote seems unlikely.
Why do you think that? Communism considered voting fundamental. The Soviet Union had voting. China had voting. Poland had voting.
Ah well that is a matter of perspective. Of course the other side thought they were fighting for their right to form their own government in accordance with the Declaration of Independence. So had the British won the war they would have been justified in taking away the vote?
I dont deny there are close elections. I just say, rightly so, that the odds are greater you’ll die in a car wreck than make a difference in an election. Deaths in car wrecks are pretty common. Close elections are pretty rare. Many of those on the list are smaller races. The odds of a single vote making a difference depend on the number of eligible voters. In federal elections your vote has very little chance of making a difference. In the local dog catcher race your vote might matter. But what is strange is most people vote only in the big elections where their vote is irrelevant and do not vote in the local race where their vote might matter.
Eight people is a different issue than the individual. The point stands. Had one more person voted for Romney nothing would have changed. One person in 30,000 has little chance of making a difference. Yes, eight people in 30,000 has a greater chance of making a difference. But the decision is the individuals not a group of eight people.
Your argument is basically a special case of the free-rider problem: it makes no difference if I personally refuse to vote / throw litter on the ground / park in a large fire lane / cut in line / etc.; therefore I will do so. But, when many follow that philosophy, society is adversely affected: it makes a huge difference when many people refuse to vote / throw litter on the ground / park in a large fire lane / cut in line / etc.
I dont see it that way. In the case of free riders you are talking about someone consuming something without contributing to its production. I dont want the government I get and do not find I get much benefit from it. I do however contribute in terms of taxes for it. What I dont contribute is a vote for a representative. I dont do that because I do not see any material difference in the candidates. I’m quite convinced, and have lots of evidence, that it does not matter who wins. I’ll get the same government.
I disagree. Those who vote and get their guy elected cant complain. They got what they wanted. Those who voted for the guy who lost but who would have done the same as the guy who won shouldn’t complain because their complaints are silly, but they do.