Thank you CircuitGuy. That was clear and decent of you. It is possible to have misunderstandings. The written word does not always come across as intended. I am quite happy to clarify and that usually solves the misunderstandings.

Despite what many see as problematic views on your part you seem like an intelligent individual. If I might venture some advice without intention of insult: When you are getting negative feedback and are certain you have been clear, I am quite well versed on the philosophy, the novels and willing to help anyone as long as they remain civil and do not automatically interpret my replies as snark. It is not my style and I rarely if ever resort to it. One must say something truly egregious to prompt me to such remarks. I almost always reserve my snark for politicians, not board members. If you will also receive it as intended helpful advice, there are others here that may not share my patience or tolerance, but would probably appreciate your attempt to make amends.

I'll tell you what, if you are to remain here and wish to make attempt to make peace with the other members that have become irritated with some of your comments, and they find it acceptable, I will consider being magnanimous, PM you and try to help you navigate some of the pitfalls. There are certain views you hold that will only go over like a lead balloon here in the public domain. By now you must realize what some of them are. These it would be best to examine outside of this venue or risk admonition. In the mean time I suggest you investigate the relationship between Ayn Rand and William F. Buckley jr. Rand considered him persona non grata because of his views and remarks despite the fact that Buckley was, to the best of my knowledge, civil. I may be your best hope. Please do not disappoint. I may be the most patient long term member around here and I do not want to regret my offer.Some would just as soon ignore you. I do not intend this to sound condescending either. Again, I do not do snark.

Respectfully,
O.A.

Yes. I was trying to say I am truly sorry for snarking.

Hello CircuitGuy,
You read me all wrong. I do not do snark. I was sincere and trying to remain civil in the face of your less than flattering reaction... I truly believe you have some areas of contradiction with the philosophy. If you wish to take that as offensive, I do not see it that way, but I can't change that.
Good grief,
Respectfully,
O.A.

"I do not see any areas I need work on"
I do not either. You said you would help straightening me out of Objectivism, and I said the same thing back as snide remark. As with all snarks, it reflects badly on me for making it and not on anyone else.

I agree completely with your comments on partisan games.

"I never meant anything like that." Glad to hear that, but you see, this is an example of your communication failure. A PM: I shall give it some consideration, but I do not see any areas I need work on, unless you mean the misconceptions you believe some of us have acquired due to your comments which require clarification. In which case, you need to address them to a wider audience. My understanding alone is of little consequence.

As far as the partisan games go, they are the engine that drives the cronyism, collectivism and statism that the books address... Of course the message is also a rejection of them.

The only thing in question and problem is your recognition of who are the worst offenders, what is their driving ideology and avoiding the perception your associations and some of your comments have garnered for you. I suggest you consider all of the past negative comments by other contributors. Many have pointed out contradictions you seem to have given little consideration. This may profit you more in the future.
I hope you find the clarity you seek.
I'm done.

"So, now I am a jerk and objectivists are self righteous, miss the entire point of the novels, have a primary interest of being jerks"
Nothing like that. Send me a PM, and we can find a time to talk by phone or in person. I never meant anything like that.

" Also you do not believe the books are about politics. They are."
They're a rejection of all that political crap you went over where you turn bad policies and scandals into partisan games.

"I do not believe it is in your best interest to start a thread as you have suggested to dissect your past contradictions"
It is in our interest to explore apparent contradictions. That's how we get find things out, how we find logical errors or bad axioms/premises.

Some of your comments are on track. I will gladly help you on the areas you need to work on.

CircuitGuy,

So, now I am a jerk and objectivists are self righteous, miss the entire point of the novels, have a primary interest of being jerks. And YOU find it difficult to have discussions with AR fans...

I don’t know why I should help you understand why you sometimes get unfavorable reactions from Objectivists, but I will try to address some of your recent comments.

Some could be, rightly or wrongly, perceived as “characteristic” of AS villains though your actual intent and actions may be contrary. For instance, one problem is your willingness to associate with politicians that are the biggest advocates of policies contrary to Objectivism when you should be denouncing them. The Republican Party is bad but the Democratic Party is much worse. Most are proponents of collectivist mob rule particularly on economic issues. They constantly spout off about “our Democracy” without recognition of the fact that we were founded as a Republic with democratic elections. They are the bigger proponents of collectivism, statism, economic egalitarianism, redistribution, socialism and altruism. Altruism is absolute anathema to the philosophy and it is a major motivator among democrat liberals. They are not friends of free markets or capitalism. They are the biggest advocates of a mixed market bordering on socialism. The Obamacare law is only the latest most prominent example. It was shoved down our throats without one single Republican vote. Yes, the Democratic party of today is worse. They reward sloth and punish the productive, have never seen a tax increase that they didn’t like, refuse to cut any excess spending except the defense budget and it is one of the few things the Constitution actually demands/ authorize the federal government to spend tax money on. They fund cronies like the Solyndras and GEs etc., etc. while displaying hypocritical outrage over Haliburton… They brazenly lie and slander like Harry Reid did on the Senate floor regarding Romney’s taxes and now that he is not running for re-election and is called on it, he has nothing to lose, no remorse and is proud of it since “Romney lost”, which was his motivation. And the MSM doesn’t care because they are sycophants. If things were reversed they would have crucified a republican. This bias largely causes many republicans to fold on principle since the media and the democrats shamelessly always circle the wagons, twist facts, question the motives of others, and scream racism, sexism, homophobia and any other feigned outrage they can conjure. Also you do not believe the books are about politics. They are. Rand made it clear that AS was the embodiment of her philosophy put into the form of a novel. Her other books also carry strong political messages that align with her philosophy. Her academic works reference passages of the novels. Her philosophy, like any fully developed philosophy, has a political aspect to it. It must, because philosophy deals with how we see the world, how we interact with each other and govern.

You suggest that you don’t know us and that we don’t know you. It is true that we have not met, but we have had over a year and a half of reading your thoughts. We may believe you are a fine person and hold no personal animosity and yet find your full appreciation and understanding of the philosophy wanting. Some of your comments demonstrate you are on track and others that you are off base and do not yet see the contradictions. Your words and professed actions are what we have to work with. We take you at your word and you protest the implications. Some associations/actions you have admitted to are going to be seen as tacit approval of enemies of Liberty, limited government, free markets and objectivist philosophy. Thus some will see you in that camp. Your comments make it about you.

I do not believe it is in your best interest to start a thread as you have suggested to dissect your past contradictions. I do hope you will study the more academic writings and how they relate to the novels. I understand everyone does not come to the same understanding at the same time. Please consider the full context of the material on this site and check your premises. Some here no longer have my patience or any more interest in helping you. In spite of your continued name calling, I have no desire to rip on you, only to help you see the areas you need to work on.

With all due respect,
O.A.

@winter, @rich, @rocky: Politicians - People who remember names, build alliances, and can talk in a generic way that allows the listener to fill in the blanks.

"I point out that rationally, it's in one's interest to support candidates which are more in line with free markets, less government, proper government and more liberty-and apparently"
That's all logical. The one part I reject is that one party is "more in line with free markets and less government". I actually did not know you thought one party was better. If you assume parties don't matter for liberty, then it sounds like you're just changing the topic from what I'm actually saying to personal attacks and nitpicking. We can be talking about some issue like reducing gov't spending, and people respond, "but you voted for President Clinton/Bush/Obama who expanded gov't cost, intrusiveness, and the federal deficit, so you *personally* caused this problem!" The topic is changed from a discussion of liberty to whether some individual we haven't met has done enough personally to fight for liberty.

"The name calling was beneath you. "
I agree, but it goes both ways. It seemed like you likened me to an AS villain. Sorry I vented on you. I don't even know you.

I stand by the claim that a lot of nastiness comes from AR fans, as if they missed the entire point AS and Fountainhead and use it as a self-righteous fig leaf over their primary interest of being a jerk. This is unfortunate b/c it means it's hard to have discussions with AR fans, and what's worse it causes people to think the books are about politics.

That comment and this discussion belong in its own thread, not as a response to you.

In either order.

I doubt Cruz will be the nominee. When the time comes I wonder if Beck will urge him to run on a third party ticket? For the Republicans I think a Rand Paul/Ted Cruz ticket would be interesting.

He said he could support Ted Cruz on O'Reilly last night.

Agreed. I wonder if he will endorse Ted Cruz? If he shows any support for Jeb Bush then he is a complete joke.

Whatever......Beck does this every four years. He's just a huckster, by the end he'll be pushing to vote for whatever statist candidate is selected by the inner circle of the RNC/DNC. He is just controlled opposition.
Ignore the turncoat.

Sorry CG,

"Why do you carry on saying this..." Strange... I do not recall doing what you have intimated and characterized in this way... From your response, I believe you have overreacted. Careful or one might think I alone have struck a nerve were it not for your comment that "you're not the only one,.." Prior to this exchange I do not recall challenging you. Since I am "not the only one" you might take that into consideration.

...Just pointing out what "appeared" to be a contradiction with your adherence to the philosophy and one you may wish to consider, challenge or clarify by elaboration. It is not about you personally.To my knowledge, you have, until now, been at least capable of refraining from name calling. I respected that. It is not my fault the comments you have made carried these possible implications. It is our business to point out the contradictions and implications for all to learn from and recognize. I see from further comment you have protested and wish to remove doubt regarding your intentions. Good. I hope so. I am not a mind reader, but it is clear to me and others, that you have produced a mixed bag of comments. Some quite in line with the philosophy and laudable, and others that are blatant contradictions. If you are honest about it and try to see it from my perspective, it should be clear how one could proffer the possibility I did. It was after all, not stated as fact, only an observation... an easily drawn inference that needed clarification on your part.
Well, now we have it. So be it. I can accept that.

If I supported candidates and made comments anathema to objectivism here, I would expect people to call me on them. Multiple possibilities could be responsible... unclear expression, misunderstanding on your part, or simple misunderstanding on mine.
There was no animosity on my part. The clarification was needed. The name calling was beneath you.
I hope you can get past that.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Kasich thought he would be at that point now, but isn't yet. You are correct.

People that pay attention to politics, perhaps. But as we have unfortunately come to realize, politics is about name-association and little else these days. And Kasich simply has no name-recognition for a national push, where the others I mentioned do. Thus he has a long, uphill battle (costing lots of money) to establish that even before he can get into differentiating himself from the other candidates. I think the reason he hasn't thrown his hat in the ring is that he knows he doesn't have the name-recognition at this point to try to run for President with the likes of the other big names already in play. His smart play is to work on building up that name recognition and try in four years - assuming that a Republican loses the next Presidential election.

Gee, I don't know, but I think that maybe saying people are acting like complete dicks- my Mama taught me that was rude.

Hey. I'm a registered Libertarian. Watch who you are calling a loonie. :) lol

Actually, I agree. I registered that way but am not actually a paying member of the LP of PA. There are too many one-issue libertarians. If some democrat would just promise to give them their hemp he could probably siphon off 20% of the L vote.

Like Objectivists, they will also tend to fight tooth and nail over every jot and tittle of a policy. I'm for every change that moves us forward toward the complete embrace of liberty. In any election, unfortunately I feel like I tend to have to vote for the one that will infringe my liberties less.

But hey, really? Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are the best the main stream parties can do? Has it really come to that? If so, Hillary will win solely because she is a self-identifying female (did I get all my PC terminology correct there? :) )

Actually I would argue that Kasich carried the state for Obama. Not on purpose but because he had done such a good job deflecting Obama's policies that Ohioans were not feeling the pain as badly as some other states. In a critical swing state, not feeling the pain means a vote for the incumbent.

Scott Walker and John Kasich are two people that most non-Democrats could vote for. Kasich doesn't have the charisma that some candidates do. Some people, perhaps correctly, think that he has gone a little too soft, in the last few years. I would put him in as the person in charge of the budget. He did a terrific job of that when he was Newt's budget guy.

Governing is pretty hard. Sometimes things come up where you have to put the desires of those who elected you before what you would prefer personally. I had one such incident when I was my faculty senate's president. That incident moved me from conservative to libertarian.

Gary Johnson might be a Libertarian, but he's never going to command the kind of cache one would need for a serious presidential run.

Ron Paul killed himself in the 2004 and 2008 runs with his stupidity on foreign policy so soon after 9-11. I think the guy has the economic policy side right, but he'd be a disaster on the foreign stage.

Fascist describes Hillary very well. She plays all the same games Hitler did to get elected, and she is just as shrill, egomaniacal, hateful, spiteful, and arrogant, just less articulate. If you learned nothing from Whitewater or email-gate, you are a fool. Hillary would follow Obama's disdain for Constitutional Law.

Barak Obama isn't a socialist per se, but rather a wanna-be sovereign dictator. Obamacare to some is a socialist policy, but in reality it's a half-way point to total autocratic rule. The same with his immigration and taxation policies. He sees his boot firmly on the necks of anyone who opposes him while he greases the palms of those connected to him. He despises anyone who stands up to him - which is why he went after Netayahu like he did.

Because Kasich is lower on the totem pole and doesn't have the name recognition right now. And he didn't show up at CPAC, which is the typical first step in a Presidential run.

Now if Ben Carson and Scott Walker get booted like Herman Cain did, it opens the door for the money candidates (Jeb Bush) and Kasich can then scoot in as the upstart contender, but I just don't see it happening this time. Marco Rubio is rumored to be in, as is Rand Paul. That makes for an awfully crowded field of highly-recognizable names for Kasich to overcome.

Lastly, let's remember that Kasich couldn't even carry Ohio for Romney in the last election. Now I'm not arguing that Romney was the best candidate, but if you can't help carry your state, you're not going to get a lot of love from the RNC, and you need their vote (and money).

So if a candidate is supporting one libertarian/Objectivist policy, but no others, he is the candidate you're looking to support?