2 of 2
2
The Greatest Marketing scheme in America
Posted: 11 March 2012 06:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
Sandy Price - 11 March 2012 06:36 AM

So excuse me if I do not vote for either side of the aisle during these elections.  I have always seen a spark in the ideals of Ron Paul.  But when a site based on free thought wants to issue labels, then I log off.

No need to ask anyone to excuse you. It’s your right to use your vote any way you like. It is a clear fact however that Ron Paul will never be POTUS.

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2012 07:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24

So the purpose of one voting for POTUS is to say we voted for a winner?  I have found that this is common on the internet.  Many will not speculate until they locate the winner.  Did you ever read “The Fountainhead?”  Did you ever search for an “ideal” candidate? 

Traveler, I am not just a voter but an individual voter.  I do not sit back and wait to see who the party puts in the campaigns.  I go for the issues not the labels.  I have never let others make my choices.  I am a certified cranky old bitch.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2012 07:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
Sandy Price - 11 March 2012 07:39 AM

So the purpose of one voting for POTUS is to say we voted for a winner?  I have found that this is common on the internet.  Many will not speculate until they locate the winner.  Did you ever read “The Fountainhead?”  Did you ever search for an “ideal” candidate? 

Traveler, I am not just a voter but an individual voter.  I do not sit back and wait to see who the party puts in the campaigns.  I go for the issues not the labels.  I have never let others make my choices.  I am a certified cranky old bitch.

Sorry, but I still like you.  smile

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2012 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24

Thank you, the feeling is mutual.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2012 12:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Fascinating.  I can see both of your philosophies.  Traveler recognizes that each individual vote for the better of the candidates who has a chance of winning increases his/her chance of beating the worse candidates.  That is, the perfect is the enemy of the good.  Sandy feels it’s important that she voice her ideas, and that those in power see the number of people who support the views of a particular candidate.  If this number is significant, she hopes that it will influence the ones elected. 

I usually behave in accordance with Traveler’s views, but whenever I recognize that the race is not close, I follow Sandy’s path.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2012 12:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24

I tend to write in a candidate when the other two make me want to throw up.  Incumbants in the Congress are never an option. 

I’m back home in California and I am delighted to be home again.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2012 01:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  191
Joined  2010-10-09

I wonder why so many women seem so captivated by Ayn Rand, and in particular “The Fountainhead”, whose hero, Roark, brutally rapes the heroine, Dominique

To me, it hints of a subconscious streak of sado-masochism.

Theflyingsorcerer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2012 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Welcome home, Sandy.  smile

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2012 02:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01

I have always found he argument interesting vis-a-vis voting for a candidate with little chance to win as “throwing your vote away.” When I was young and idealistic, I grew worried that Jimmy Carter did not have what it took to lead us out of our dire situation in 1980, but I seriously disliked Reagan. A friend at the University of Kentucky where I was attending convinced me to support 3rd party candidate John Anderson, who was a fairly moderate Republican. I even worked for his campaign on campus. Then a few days before the election I got worried that Reagan would win and it would be in part because of Anderson. He had no chance. On election day I voted for Carter. That day the idealist turned into a pragmatist. But Carter still lost.

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2012 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24
Theflyingsorcerer - 11 March 2012 01:14 PM

I wonder why so many women seem so captivated by Ayn Rand, and in particular “The Fountainhead”, whose hero, Roark, brutally rapes the heroine, Dominique

To me, it hints of a subconscious streak of sado-masochism.

Theflyingsorcerer.

I believe Dominique was involved actively in the rape.  She had teased Howard into action.  I’m saddened that this is what you remember about the story.  I was taken by the hero who refused to conform his designs for the welfare of others.  I tend to support people who have ideals and would never compromise them for any reason.  In fact, after reading a lot of Rand’s essays and conversing with Dr. Piekof who explained that Rand wrote of ideals, I grew my own.  I’m tired of having men’s actions explained as compromising. 

As a mature woman, I am captivated by the search and rescue of ideals.  After reading Rand’s words, I trained my children to search for joy, knowing right from wrong, and then locating the ideals of what we are all about. 

This attitude of mine has brought a lot of anger among many on the Internet.  How dare I have ideals when so many others do not?  Apparently this is not considered fair.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2012 10:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  191
Joined  2010-10-09

Nothing wrong with having ideals; I have lots of my own, and SOME OF THEM coincide with what Ayn Rand wrote. Others are totally opposed.

And the rape scene isn’t all I remember about the book. It just struck me as - as I said - indicating that Rand had a very strong streak of sado-masochism. That isn’t the only indication; it also comes through strongly, I think, in “Atlas Shrugged”, in Dagny Taggart’s relationship with Hank Rearden. And “never compromising for any reason” sounds like fanaticism to me - a common trait of religious extremists. I imagine the guys who crashed aircraft full of innocent passengers into the World Trade Centre towers were driven by uncompromising ideals.

We currently live in a world ruled by Rand’s “Ideal” of Selfishness. The logical outcome of this “Ideal” is exemplified by such characters as Rupert Murdoch, who lied, cheated, bribed, browbeat and stole his way to the top and was finally tripped up when surveillance cameras caught him attempting to destroy evidence of his crimes. He got what amounted to a rap across the knuckles. Typical.

Theflyingsorcerer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2012 03:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

Sandy,
I picked up on one major point you metioned, corruption in government.

As I recall, in his first bid for the presidency Obama refused to have the support of PACs. This of course was due to the fact that he had such overwhelming support from small donors that he had no need for that strategy. However, since the Supreme Court decision allowing for unlimited contributions to PACs, Obama was forced to also employ this strategy.
This is very unfortunate as Obama in principle is opposed to PACs because it is so obvious that this has become the primary source of corruption in politics. But there is a clear distinction of making pragmatic choices from necesseity than futile choices from principle.

The point I am trying to make, is that while I am a firm supporter of free markets (capitalism), the reality is that when just a few (1%) of the most wealthy, and I mean wealth to the point of vulgarity, are able to pre-empt any choice of a qualified and decent person to the presidency, one has to make a decision if one wants to live in a (religious) autocracy or in a free and secular democracy.

IMO all other principles are subject to the a priori effort of reducing the influence of Big Money in government. Greed is the root of ALL evil. Therfore, as an independent, after careful weighing the issues, I will not support a specific party but the individuals who seems to be the most qualified and committed to restoring a Constitutional government which is based on a balance of socio/economic principles.

While I admire Ron Paul for his principled stance, I also believe that a great civilization must be based on a balance of socio/economic principles which require a fair distribution of obligations to maintain this balance. I believe his vision is naive in this modern world. The only one who IMO demonstrably has such a vision, the ability, and the reasonable chance of being elected is Obama.
God forbid we get any of the other 3 clowns, who will return this country back a hundred years. The one thing I fear more than Greed is Religion and they represent both.

[ Edited: 12 March 2012 03:21 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2012 06:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24
Theflyingsorcerer - 11 March 2012 10:16 PM

Nothing wrong with having ideals; I have lots of my own, and SOME OF THEM coincide with what Ayn Rand wrote. Others are totally opposed.

And the rape scene isn’t all I remember about the book. It just struck me as - as I said - indicating that Rand had a very strong streak of sado-masochism. That isn’t the only indication; it also comes through strongly, I think, in “Atlas Shrugged”, in Dagny Taggart’s relationship with Hank Rearden. And “never compromising for any reason” sounds like fanaticism to me - a common trait of religious extremists. I imagine the guys who crashed aircraft full of innocent passengers into the World Trade Centre towers were driven by uncompromising ideals.

We currently live in a world ruled by Rand’s “Ideal” of Selfishness. The logical outcome of this “Ideal” is exemplified by such characters as Rupert Murdoch, who lied, cheated, bribed, browbeat and stole his way to the top and was finally tripped up when surveillance cameras caught him attempting to destroy evidence of his crimes. He got what amounted to a rap across the knuckles. Typical.

Theflyingsorcerer.

Rand wrote fiction!  She assimilated her ideals into a cast of characters in the extreme.  She had a message which may not work in today’s culture.  What you call fanaticism is now impossible probably due to the influence of the culture of today. 

We will never know why 911 was aimed at America and there has been speculation that it was Allah who drove that tragedy.  The complaint was that during the first Iraqi war, we left junk on their holy ground.  The question of who knew of the threat and when, will never be addressed.  It woke up the religious war than anyone who cared to read history, knew was coming.  Religion is the base of all uncompromising ideals.  Allah will speak again after the tragedy of the killing of innocent people in Afghanistan over the weekend. 

Selfishness is the result of living by those ideals that we stand by with pride.  Rand helped me define my own ideals and I have never wavered from them.  The down side is that it defines those of us who have no ideals. 

Not all humans develop leadership skills.  Some strive to fix the bad actions that come from many humans.  We end up preparing ourselves not to be affected by them.  I am horrified with the culture of America at this time.  We have allowed ourselves to judge our leaders by how “Christian” they are and far too many look at Palin as the perfect Christian woman.  In a Democracy the majority wins.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 March 2012 06:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24
Write4U - 12 March 2012 03:12 AM

Sandy,
I picked up on one major point you metioned, corruption in government.

As I recall, in his first bid for the presidency Obama refused to have the support of PACs. This of course was due to the fact that he had such overwhelming support from small donors that he had no need for that strategy. However, since the Supreme Court decision allowing for unlimited contributions to PACs, Obama was forced to also employ this strategy.
This is very unfortunate as Obama in principle is opposed to PACs because it is so obvious that this has become the primary source of corruption in politics. But there is a clear distinction of making pragmatic choices from necesseity than futile choices from principle.

The point I am trying to make, is that while I am a firm supporter of free markets (capitalism), the reality is that when just a few (1%) of the most wealthy, and I mean wealth to the point of vulgarity, are able to pre-empt any choice of a qualified and decent person to the presidency, one has to make a decision if one wants to live in a (religious) autocracy or in a free and secular democracy.

IMO all other principles are subject to the a priori effort of reducing the influence of Big Money in government. Greed is the root of ALL evil. Therfore, as an independent, after careful weighing the issues, I will not support a specific party but the individuals who seems to be the most qualified and committed to restoring a Constitutional government which is based on a balance of socio/economic principles.

While I admire Ron Paul for his principled stance, I also believe that a great civilization must be based on a balance of socio/economic principles which require a fair distribution of obligations to maintain this balance. I believe his vision is naive in this modern world. The only one who IMO demonstrably has such a vision, the ability, and the reasonable chance of being elected is Obama.
God forbid we get any of the other 3 clowns, who will return this country back a hundred years. The one thing I fear more than Greed is Religion and they represent both.

You make some fabulous points.  Sadly Obama did not follow his own ideals.  But his campaign leaders felt he had to compromise to win. 

We have a government of legislators who have corrupted their own ability to operate under the laws.  They simply changed the laws to suit themselves during their day to day work and focused on their reelections.  Even our tax laws that we believe are not fair are legal thanks to the House and Senate.  Lobbying has been legal since the beginning but taking money for the purpose of changing votes when it comes to government contracts is not legal.  There is no oversight because we elect our representatives by what they promise the voters.  Nothing wrong here.  It has become insider trading that we find in our own Congress. 

Much of this was discussed by H. Ross Perot during his campaign.  When he ran for President in 1992 he got nearly 20% of the votes and pulled out when he saw the impact on his family.  I worked very hard to get Perot on the ballots across America and met him on several occasions and he spoke the truth.  He would never have lived through the campaign as the American public is more interested in destroying competition. 

The Republican candidates are using Jesus Christ to win the election.  Nobody would shoot one of Jesus’s guys.  I’m hoping they or the final candidate will lose in the final election.  We are facing another lesser of two evils again.  Now that the religious right has finally gotten into the election groove, our nation will never be the same. 

We may not have found the individual that we both can vote for…yet.  We need to keep trying.  This is what the internet should be about and the closest site is CFI.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2