To not vote means that one does not have a set of core moral values that he embraces.
Close: to not vote means that the candidates presented do not match my set of core moral values closely enough that I'm willing to lend my mandate to their causes. I didn't just stay home; I went to the polls, gave careful consideration to the options have, and selected the option most compatible with my strongly- and deeply-held beliefs. I've said several times that my biggest complaint is the lack of options, and I've said that I would have voted, and proudly, had the State deigned to allow other parties (in my case, Libertarian/Badnarik) on the ballot.
Certainly he does not embrace the values upon which this nation was founded and made the greatest nation in the history of the world.
Ah, but I do, and most heartily. This great nation was founded upon the ideal of freedom and due process, not warrantless searches and unlimited detention without charges. "The right to bear arms," not "the right to keep guns that don't look too scary, and then only if you're in the military." The right to free speech, not "the 'free speech zone' is in this chain-link-and-barbed-wire cage half a mile from the convention site." The right to travel freely, not "papers, please." And the right to vote for whomever I like, not one of two candidates pre-selected for me by the State.
Go back and read that last sentence again. Candidates selected by the State. Remember I mentioned Russia earlier? Does this sound just a bit familiar. Even pre-invasion, Iraq had elections. Yup, that's right, you could vote for anybody on the ballot for President of Iraq. 'Course, there was only one name on the ballot, but you could vote!
Those were the Judeo/Christian ethic.
Not so much as you might think. The Founding Fathers, by and large, were Deists.
If one has no core values that are important enough to understand that to do nothing is to renege on one's responsibility...
This sounds remarkably accusatory; I'm sure you meant it hypothetically, of course, as attacking the speaker has no place in any logical, mature debate. Please be careful with your wording; I'm sure you don't want this to start sounding like DU.
A good citizen does that which is best for his nation.
And, as I've said, it was my carefully considered opinion that neither candidate was best for the nation. They are both seriously problematic.
On one hand, we had a candidate who allowed spending increase after spending increase, including some of the largest discretionary, non-military budget increases ever. In fact, on that man's watch, we saw four of the five largest spending increases in history. We had a candidate who publicly expressed support for restricting our gun rights. We had a candidate who supported, and aided in passing, a bill to restrict your freedom of speech with regards to elections. We had a candidate who supported, and aided in passing, a law that gave the government broad-reaching powers of surveillance, even providing for searches and siezures without warrant, and kept secret, denying even the most basic judicial review.
On the other hand, we had the Democrat. And, as a senator, he voted for every one of the bills I just mentioned, and held all of the same positions.
Tell me again how either one of them is "best for the nation," given the above? Tell me again how you reconcile either candidate's position with the Constitution. Neither one of them gets it; I've heard both of them speak about the rights the government gives, or the Constitution gives. They're both statists!
The most important were the moral issues. If one cannot identify those issues and stand for what is right, then he is not a good citizen.
Again, with the accusatory tone. But, again, I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue (er, fingers). What, exactly, are the "moral issues" of which you speak? As near as I can tell, the biggest moral issue is the morality of government trying to interfere with the rights endowed me by my Creator (among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). Which one of the candidates was working to reduce government intervention in my life; which one was trying to reduce the government's immoral and unconscionable interference with my inalienable rights?
If one cannot identify those issues and stand for what is right, then he is not a good citizen. He is a foolish person who does not deserve the liberty which we have.
Y'know, I think that's the first thing you've said with which I agree.
