Your view is much more optimistic than mine. We'll be lucky to survive 4 more years. And I mean that literally.

We had many warnings about Obama and his true feelings on freedom. Enough people chose to ignore the warnings and now we have to suffer another 4 years of his failed leadership.

You hear this a LOT. It mostly comes from people who read Atlas Shrugged in high school...

... for the sex scenes.

And never understood what the novel is about.

And still don't.

Ayn Rand being taught to teens in todays society is ludicrous with the values of this society. Wouldn't it be great??????????

Ayn Rand's thinking has guided my life for many years. She affirms what I believe in my heart to live and succeed in life. I used to drive from Reno to San Francisco for her lectures on objectiveism.
I met N. Brannan several times. I've read most of what she has written, WE THE LIVING touched me deeply.

Atlas Shrugged was my map of living, I'm a UC Berkeley grade. (journalism)

So, an author has to be exactly right on everything he or she says before you support them? Good luck on that one...

Of course, since I read Atlas in 1970 or so, even back then I could see her predictions begin to come true... when John Lindsay kept caving to the unions on every demand during every strike, I predicted that NYC would be bankrupted by that within five or so years.

It was... and the insights of Atlas made my prediction easy to make. Before Atlas, I probably would not have even noticed the process.

Then there was Gray Davis in CA...

Oh, and the equivalent of Directive 10-289 that the NY Legislature actually introduced during one of the many recessions "in order to help stabilize employment."

You don't need to make this stuff up... just notice it.


and if you're really gone out of here for those reasons.... "Bye!"

Well, I've been "studying" the political realm for decades and I've noticed the "political bs" factor has been around for as long or longer than I've been voting (50 or so years of voting, that is...) so if you're expecting a drastic change one way or the other This Time, I'd caution you to not get your hopes up too high.

As for reading Rand in high school, ask your son if there are any particular "right answers" to questions about the book in class... :)

Don't forget that, not mentioned by the government or the media at the time, there's also a big Continental Shelf off Viet Nam, and guess what tends to hide under continental shelves...?

... yep, spoken as a true socialist might put it.... I was born in 1945 and was introduced to Atlas around 1970. It changed my life perceptions more than any book I'd read up 'til then.

Back then, we also had the joke, "What's the defiinition of a Conservative?.....
a) A Liberal who's just been mugged., and
b) A Liberal who's just made it into the 50% tax bracket...

Wake up, O...

name calling is not a logical argument. What is your point on Vietnam? Rand said it was our right to be there but not in our national interest, therefore she was against the Vietnam War. She was against the draft. This is consistent with Objectivism. Which part do you disagree with her?

It is ironic to complain that Rand was wrong on certain issues due to being overemotional and then hurl insults while storming out in a huff.

Khalling: may I suggest you read her for the first time? Hmmm... new to this... I thought I would find some intellectuals here. Instead I find a bunch of faux-conservatives spouting political rhetoric and one liners like one would find on a redneck bumper sticker. Think about it: Rand was tight on most things, but totally blew it on Vietnam. And the environment. She was emotional, not rational, on those 2 topics. And dead wrong. Thanks for a worthless debate- I'm not coming back.

I'll start a new post with the 1964 Playboy interview with Rand which I think is on point with this thread of the discussion

We picked up many things when we were young, most of us learnt something from what we read, pity the chosen one stayed a teenager.

a rogue country is like a murderer or thief. we do not have an obligation to bring them to justice, but we have the right to, Guitarist. go back and read again

There is not one position on the war in Iraq that is in line with objectivism. Rational people can disagree. Yes, reality would be the arbiter, but not all of us measure war in dollars and cents.

For the big critic, it appears you have never even read, much less comprehend, the priinciples underlying Objectivism. For a President, there is no principle more fundamental than "Never initiate the use of force." Unlike the intellectually challenged Bush and his war mongers. One trillion later and counting, we will pay and pay, on Bush's "off budget" credit card, for decades. facts are facts. A is A. Check your premises.

If he gets reelected he'll be more than flexible...and not just with Putin.... haaaaa!.

I don't mean to pick on you, Guitarist, but your comments strike me as funny. In intelligent discussion, it is good practice to back up a claim after making it. The claim that Obama is more rational than Romney is, frankly, irrational. Just for kicks, I'd love to hear your reasoning behind that.

Yes, that's part of it being a nationally broadcast war.

I wouldn't say "can't be worse," just that all evidence says that he won't be worse.

That is unless one is talking about taking out Ben Laden.

We all must realize that 90% of politicians are only in the game to line their own pockets and secure THEIR future - no concern for anyone else. Obama is a disaster - Romney deserves a chance to be logical and honest. There is nothing to lose, he can't be worse than the current one.

He, "will be more FLEXIBLE after the election."