Even if Democrats and Republicans don’t agree on most issues, at least they can agree that they love their country and will stand up and fight for it. Oh, wait. Nevermind. I was confusing bipartisanship with tyranny.
I recently engaged in a series of intriguing emails with a left-wing liberal democrat who holds Barack Obama on a pyrite pedestal. She is your standard well-educated, working, wisdom-lacking, American-voting, citizen-of-the-world that looks at things through rose-colored glasses. My ideas, of course, were “absurd” (as well as a host of other descriptions I will not list off for sake of time). But here’s the bottom line: If you could be born and live in any country in the world, where would you choose to live?
Most leftists dodge the question and give superfluous evidence to an unstated point. They say everything except a straight answer to the question. Not this cat. She prattled off a large handful of central European countries. I was shocked. This liberal was actually straightforward. So I give her John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address and ask her to name the speaker. You know the one: “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” Ooh! Rejection! Your greatest democrat hero just told you to stick it out and fight! How do you respond to that one, ma’am?
She informed me she is studying for Greek citizenship to move there and be able to work anywhere in Europe. (Dramatic pause.) OK, so my point backfired in my face. But this raises the question as to why she would engage in a lengthy debate with me on American politics at all. Why isn’t she turning her head east to Greece? If she’s getting the heck out of Dodge, why should she get a voice as to who governs me? She needs to forfeit her vote!
Our founding fathers established the Electoral College to protect democracy. After all, pure government theories do not work with imperfect human nature. It would go to ensure that ill-informed Americans could not elect the wrong leader for themselves. It does not make sense to me that educated Americans (such as the one I email-debated) would vote for such a power-hungry individual in Obama. But that’s the point. The College would protect less well-informed Americans from electing Obama. But it won’t. “Educated” Americans are trying to put him in the White House.
There is nothing anyone can, or should, do to stand in the way of someone with a legal right to vote of casting her ballot. But that person, especially someone of education, should have the morals and common decency to abstain from voting in an election that will not affect her. Attempting to change the tides of leadership and leaving after your effort is useless to that person. It’s arrogant and oppressive. (It’s also the same thing Obama is trying to do by pulling out of Iraq before the democracy and freedom has been firmly established.) If you’re moving out of the country and changing your citizenship, I’m the one who has to live with your vote, not you! It’s immoral and disrespectful.
However, freedom is what makes this country of America great, so I would never stand in the way of someone voting if she has that legal right. She should not cast her vote, I affirm. Since no one stands in her way, it becomes incumbent upon her to decide what is right. If she chooses to punch that chad in November, whether it’s blue or red, she chooses of her own free will to tyrannically oppress me and my fellow American citizens who are leaving our country, who are not asking for a handout, who are asking how we can help make our great country even greater.
5 comments:
JFK was referring to the PEACE Corps in that famous speech not the WAR Corps, dear boy.
In reading the transcript JFK's inaguration speech, no, in fact he wasn't. He made no specific reference whatsoever. Besides, the peace corps does not give hand-outs to fellow countrymen. It provides aide abroad, focusing on third-world countries. Therefore, there's no possible way the peace corps could do anything for Americans or the country as a whole, thus rendering that definition of the famous conclusion false.
you are missing the bigger picture. typical.
And you haven't a clue how uninformed you really are. That's called arrogance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Corps
Now theeere's an intelligent response. Mud-slinging. That's an ugly trait and you're better than that.
Wikipedia is hardly a credible source.
Please inform me how even if wikipedia were credible how this supports your arguement. The quoted mission of the Peace Corps clearly states how the goal is to serve ABROAD, not domestically.
Sooo, I'm uninformed how exactly?
That is not mud-slinging. you really are not that informed.
The peace corps was formed to help undeveloped nations & to improve our image in the world which ultimately is beneficial to us. that is what you are missing. the world is inter-connected, we have to have a broader view. by helping those with less we help ourselves. that was the reason for the peace corps.
Post a Comment