14

Can a dedicated member of the Gulch support Obama?

Posted by mdk2608 4 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
265 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Just wanted to solicit comments and feedback for us to think about.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 14
    Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
    Obama is the Anti-Rand. Nothing about him is consistent with a Rand’s philosophy. Therefore in my opinion if someone follows even a fraction of Obama’s policies it would be impossible for a resident of the Gulch (the virtual one or the real one) to support Obama and remain consistent with the Rand’s goals. In fact Obama intentionally tries to counter just about everything in that objectivist philosophy. For example if we look at Obama’s “I am my brother’s keeper initiative” It is the opposite of Rand’s. His big government strategy is opposite. His pro socialism agenda, his live off the government anti work anti-capitalist agenda, his I never met a regulation I did not like philosophy, and his “everyone deserves a fair shot” slogan has its roots in communism and its “everyone should be equal” origins. That’s just a few. It’s like vinegar and water. The two do not mix no matter how hard one tries. It is impossible. Obama appeals to the non-thinker and the person who wants someone else to think for him. The thinker can see through the lies. Granted I can see how someone in 2008 might have been caught up in the Obama’s rhetoric. I mean who didn’t like the “ there are no red states not blue states only the United States slogan, or his notion of being a transparent administration, or his position of being against mounting deficits just to name a few. Much sounded great. However within a short period thereafter if you did not figure out he was elected based on almost all lies something is terribly wrong. Fortunately, I was in the camp of those who saw through the lies but as I look back I can see how someone might have been believed the rhetoric. The question I still ask myself is this man stupid or are his actions on purpose. I believe it is on purpose. It’s difficult to get elected to the Presidency being stupid, therefore I believe it is intentional based on his philosophy growing up, his associations with known communists, and his Islamic background. I believe that it is darn near impossible to destroy American from the outside. However American can be destroyed from within, where our own policies, our own constitution is used against us. This is what I see Obama doing--- destroying American from within. Therefore one cannot be dedicated to what the Gutch stands for and support Obama in any way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  KSilver3 4 years, 3 months ago
      Well stated mdk. I would just add that if a thinking person actually listened to the rhetoric in 08, they shouldn't have been caught up. "Spread the wealth", "fundamentally transform", "grow the economy from the middle out", etc.. He was actually pretty honest in 08, but so many people got caught up in the excitement of electing the first black president that they didn't actually listen to what he was saying. Those that did listen, and still voted for him were simply voting themselves into our pocket books.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
        "Let me be clear" Thank you for your comments. Everyone seemed to think fundamentally transform was going to transform in a good way and did not cosider transforming in a bad way moving more in line with Karl Marx. I agree with you premise.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Timelord 4 years, 3 months ago
      [The question I still ask myself is this man stupid or are his actions on purpose. I believe it is on purpose.]

      I concur. It's common to hear people say, and even to say myself, "That stupid piece of 5h1t! Is he out of his mind?!" That's just a slightly lazy but nevertheless ubiquitous usage of English. There are two choices when listening to Obama! and other collectivists absurd utterances. 1) They are possessed of an unnaturally low IQ, or 2) They know full well the implications of what they said but they're evil. There must be some 1.5) They truly believe what they say but don't understand the implications.

      The 1's are sad but they're only dangerous when they vote or breed. The 2's are always dangerous and should be dealt with like all evil is dealt with. The 1.5's are nearly as dangerous as the 2's, they're just without the diabolical level of evil. I'm not sure what to do about the 1.5's.

      [It’s difficult to get elected to the Presidency being stupid,]

      It's not as hard as it should be. I give you G. Bush the lesser. I think he was actually pretty dumb. I give you Dan Quayle, again, actually pretty dumb. I give you Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin, both of whom I believe are too dumb to be allowed to live alone. Given the tools and the opportunity they'd be eligible for the Darwin Award.

      [therefore I believe it is intentional based on his philosophy growing up, his associations with known communists, and his Islamic background.]

      Yes. I believe that his upbringing left him an extremely bitter, jealous racist who was able to take advantage of the systems put in place by self-loathing, guilt-ridden middle-class white guys to promote himself into the metaphoric stratosphere. He's very skilled at hiding his true nature, like a sociopath. He was also lucky to have met a woman who was just much a bitter, jealous racist but who also possessed the skills to get actual jobs that paid her gobs of money.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by BobFreeman 4 years, 3 months ago


      Vinegar’s water-soluble & mixes with water quite well, just as Statism mixes easily with Objectivism, creating acidic-tasting water in the first case, and the mixed economy that’s presently destroying our civilization on the other.

      Supporting ANY advocate of Statism is entirely “Anti-Gulch”. While the politics of Objectivism never progressed beyond the mythical ‘limited government’ concept, the Gulch was totally voluntaryist … NO State in the Gulch.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Timelord 4 years, 3 months ago
        I don't think statism mixes easily with Objectivism at all. I think statism flows freely from people who were not raised under a philosophy that values rationality, be that Objectivism or otherwise. Statism then crushes Objectivism every time its cells divide, like a slow but untreatable cancer.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by BobFreeman 4 years, 3 months ago
          You're right, TL. 'tho the Politics branch of Objectivism supports the "limited" State (somehow limited to property protection: military, police & courts).

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Timelord 4 years, 3 months ago
            I was a (unprincipled, hippie) libertarian long before I ever heard of AR!

            "(somehow limited to property protection: military, police & courts)." The somehow, the underlying philosophy, is explained in AR's non-fiction.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by BobFreeman 4 years, 3 months ago
              The “somehow” is meant to imply that the power of the State CANNOT be limited, despite the creativity, brilliance, genius and best wishes of the Rand and the
              Framers of the Constitution. While that fact is obvious from observation of the countless failed attempts over the last 6,000 years, but it still took me over 40 years of study, research, observation and practice to accept that inconvenient truth. I did not want to give up the idea of a Constitutionally-limited Republic.

              But it’s a utopian myth, TL.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by BobFreeman 4 years, 3 months ago
              Discovered “Atlas” 1966, then read everything ever published by Rand (far as I know) plus most of the stuff written ABOUT her, plus a LOT of the publications of MANY of the people influenced by Rand (& influencers of Rand) in philosophy, economics & politics, subscribed to the Ayn Rand letter, the Intellectual Activist, etc. for as long as they were published … AND most (perhaps all) of her audio material, as well as that of the Brandens, Peikoff & dozens (hundreds?) of other audio presentations by others influenced by Rand. We were facilitators for many of Peikoff’s taped courses in our area & corresponded with Rand for a while. Disappointed that I did not get to NCY to meet her in person before her premature exit from the planet.

              I’m in agreement with most of the Objectivist positions, ‘tho I’ve never completely understood her Esthetics and, after 40+ years of study, I FINALLY graduated from her minarchist limited-Constitutionally-limited government to the more consistent and rational anarcho-capitalist position, which we’re presently calling the Win-Win Free-Market Stateless Society.

              Are any of y’all familiar with the work of Andrew Galambos & Jay Snelson?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
                Bob, I admire your commitment to the cause. Your readings are impressive and far better than mine. I think we need to nominate you as town chairman of the gulch. You clearly rank up there with the best of the other residents of the gulch. Thanks for sharing and a +1 to you
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Timelord 4 years, 3 months ago
            " Politics branch of Objectivism supports the "limited" State" Oh sure, but having a State isn't Statism by any stretch of the imagination. Objectivism defines the proper role of government, the State, based on consistent, rational criteria and none of those roles or rational criteria are at odds with any other part of Objectivism.

            But the economic model described by Objectivism is Capitalism. Statism is just one facet of collectivism and is therefore refuted as a valid model.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by BobFreeman 4 years, 3 months ago
              " having a State isn't Statism by any stretch of the imagination"??!?

              Of course it is, TL. Just calling the State "Government" and pretending that the power of the State, once granted or seized, can ever be "limited" does not make advocating such an entity non-Statist.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Timelord 4 years, 3 months ago
                Statism is a philosophy of the proper role of the State, or government, or suspension bridges, choose for yourself. You insist that the mere existence of a State is Statist, and then I think you said that advocating for the existence of a State is Statist.

                I vigorously disagree!

                Statism: a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

                It appears, as I claimed, that statism is a philosophy of the proper role of government, or suspension bridges, take your pick.

                The existence of a State doesn't make it Statist any more than the existence of a hedgehog makes it a cellist.

                Unless you have achieved consensus among speakers of English for a brand new definition of Statist, your assertion is incorrect.

                (But that's just me; I could be wrong.)

                But I'm not.

                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years, 3 months ago
    I don't think any serious student of Objectivism can support Barack H. Obama. Not if by "support" one means "agree with his policies and pledge to uphold his decisions and obey his orders."

    Barack H. Obama is the worst statist ever to win election as President. He might even be the worst statist ever to stand for election as President--for I wonder whether even George S. McGovern was a much a statist as he was.

    But worse than this, he is deliberately leading America, and the rest of the world, into a Long Night of totalitarian savagery.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
      ... yeah, and that's looking more and more like the Upside of any legacy of his...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years, 3 months ago
        How does that follow? What good can come out of this Long Night?

        Or do you look forward to the kind of total collapse Rand envisioned in AS?

        Speaking of which--but I'll submit another question.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
          Tem, my comment should have been in the unknown <ironic> font. I meant that the Long Night as you called it, might be the best possible future outcome for us all, given the crap that our Fearless Leader is shoveling at us.

          In no way did I mean to imply that I LIKED that scenario or preferred it... but that in its likely inevitability, it might be the Best We Should Expect.

          Better, now?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years, 3 months ago
            Much better.

            By the way: I did submit a question on whether the producers shortchanged us on AS3 by relegating Eddie Willers to a mere footnote: Ragnar had him picked up (where?!?) after they rescued John Galt.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 4 years, 3 months ago
              Actually, in the novel you will find that Eddie was left to nothingness. As the representative of the competent but not "heroic" AR seemed to deride Eddie, leaving him to seemingly perish at the end.

              As a self-confessed "Eddie" I find this disappointing. I'm no titan of industry. I'm competent and provide value for my employer, similar to Eddie. Yet, in the vision of AR, I am not worthy of entrance to the Gulch. John A wanted to correct this in the movie, but it came across as an afterthought. There are many of us who are Eddie's. We count and matter.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                Temlakos....In AS1, I recall one of Eddie's lines where my reaction was "human beings don't talk that way!" and I wanted to slap the screenwriter around for it.

                Robbie... yep, I realized a long time ago that I would never be a Hank or Dagny-type of Leader in Industry, but I also realized that I could make lots of good contributions because of how My Mind operates.

                And I got lots of shit from many managers along the way because they were the Bad Taggarts in the companies I worked for.

                Having a few bright, receptive people around kept me in industry and reasonably content for about 34 years! But most of the time I had to sneak my insights past the Bad-Taggarts of the corporations. Part of the challenge and fun was figuring out how to do that 'for the good of the Company' as well as for my self-esteem.

                There were lots of fun times like that; just way too few of them. The lousy managers always blamed ME for 'not communicating right' to the folks I was trying to help.

                After a while, I realized that it was like I was transmitting high-quality FM signals into a sea of AM receivers. And you know what comes out of the speaker of an AM receiver bathed in clean FM signals, right?..... <nothing>.

                When they offered me a nice retirement package, I Galted outta there like a shot.

                Such is life.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 4 years, 3 months ago
                  Lucky for you to bet offered a "nice retirement package." As being on the end of the babyboom generation, I don't expect the same.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 3 months ago
                    Some skill, mostly luck. I was born just a little before the definition of the start of the Baby Boom... November of '45, so I was a bit on the leading edge of the joys and problems of that cohort.
                    Got to meet and shake the hands of Dave Packard and Bill Hewlett (and most of the CEOs after that until around 2002, too) and caught the peak (and decline) of HP. I witnessed tons of dirt during my 24 years before that mast...

                    Then there was the 'luck' of having a mom with some innate stock-picking skill that paid for my college career plus beating 'stay out of debt' into my head during my formative years. Many Boomers as well as the gangs that followed fell into the Immediate Gratification Through The Over-Use of Plastic phenomenon and they suffered greatly as a result.

                    Some day I hope to write memoirs as a contribution/legacy...

                    But right now, I'd rather be in my wood-turning shop.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by BobFreeman 4 years, 3 months ago
                Think Eddie could pass the entrance requirement for the Gulch (meaningful articulation of the oath). I don't think so & I think that was Rand's point in leaving Eddie in the wilderness alone, clinging to fantasy and beating a dead (iron) horse..
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
    this has been an interesting thread mdk. I thought I would post a quote from Rand which I think answers this question beautifully.From The New Intellectual: Who is a new intellectual?
    "Any man or woman who is willing to think. All those who know that man’s life must be guided by reason, those who value their own life and are not willing to surrender it to the cult of despair in the modern jungle of cynical impotence, just as they are not willing to surrender the world to the Dark Ages and the rule of the brutes.".
    Aligning with and supporting the current culture of the US to take from one group and give to another, to redefine words so that they may not be uttered without fear of persecution, allowing gangs of agency rogues to terrorize private citizens in their own homes for breaking laws no one knows were made, forcing people to buy products they do not want....is no Objectivist.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CapeEsperance 4 years, 3 months ago
    Everyone knew there would be one.

    However, it is far from understandable, or believable, how anyone who understands Rand's various threads of thought can possible support someone who personifies the evil she focused her stories on.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sumitch 4 years, 3 months ago
      I agree whole heartedly. Her philosophy dictates that every able bodied person do their share. No sitting on the porch drinking Ripple waiting for the food stamps and welfare check. If the best you could do for some legitimate reason was sweep the streets, you'd do it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 years, 3 months ago
    NO. Obama is a disaster in pretty much EVERY way. I wouldnt even go to lunch with him if I were invited to the white house to do so. I have nothing to say to him, nor want to listen to anything he says.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 4 years, 3 months ago
    I thought there was the non-contradiction rule? Sure, let's support someone who is doing everything they can to shut down private (non-elitist controlled/influenced) enterprise. Joe the Plumber anyone?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 4 years, 3 months ago
      Joe the plumber supported him?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by UncommonSense 4 years, 3 months ago
        I don't remember him doing so. I believe he's the one that got put down by Ovomit during the '08 campaign.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LetsShrug 4 years, 3 months ago
          Oh duh.. sorry, I misunderstood your comment before. Yes... bo saying spreading the wealth around was a good thing... and we mistakenly thought that would wake people up. And we're still waiting for that to happen. They aren't going to do it on their own.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 4 years, 3 months ago
            Because nearly everyone knows that there's someone with more wealth than they have. So, "spreading the wealth" must be taking from them to give to me, right? And those at the very top see gov't as the means to take from all those with much less and give to them. So really, we all see it as taking from someone else and being given to us. But that cannot logically be true, just nobody wants to think logically.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by sumitch 4 years, 3 months ago
            I don't agree that Obama's "spreading the wealth" is a good thing and being a suspicious of government at every turn in the road type felt that he was saying is exactly what he is doing.

            Punishing the wealthy (that are wealthy because of honest ability) by giving the fruits of their labor to others that have done nothing to deserve the reward would raise the hairs on Ms. Rand's neck. Her saying that no one deserves the rewards of my labor without consent doesn't fit with spreading the wealth the way Obama is doing it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LetsShrug 4 years, 3 months ago
              NOoooo.. Obama said, "spreading the well around is a good thing".. we aren't saying it's a good thing.. HE did. And Joe the Plumber tried to make a point (standing in the sun dripping sweat bullets, while bo droned on and on and then walked off)... Joe got him to say it...and the world ignored it!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 4 years, 3 months ago
    NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Also, at this moment in time i find it very disconcerting that anyone supports him even the black community.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sumitch 4 years, 3 months ago

      Too many people still vote for his color and his pretty speaking ability. They don't busy themselves to find out what is really going on and if they do, many do not have the ability to understand what is happening and the consequence and also the unexpected consequences.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sumitch 4 years, 3 months ago
      With the insults to BiBi and obvious hatred of Israel (Muslim training in Indonesia perhaps?) I can't come up why so many Jews voted for him. It's a conundrum for me. Israel is our only ally in that region and even if they will always do what's best for them regardless of our position, I can't blame them. They are surrounded by hostile nations. Plus Isis has them in their sites and Iran is just waiting for the day they can send a nuke to them.

      Iraq might want to think long and hard about that though. Israel has a philosophy of two eyes for an eye and I believe that they have more nukes that Iran will have.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 4 years, 3 months ago
    I took the same oath which BHO took, when I was
    commissioned into the usaf. . . I have behaved
    accordingly. . he has not, as he has violated the
    constitution frequently during his tenure. . apparently,
    his university study of the constitution was aimed
    at its circumvention. . . he has succeeded.

    the man is a traitor. . I wish that he would retire
    to a south pacific island with a golf course and
    no communication with the world whatsoever. -- j

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by walkabout 4 years, 3 months ago
    There I was minding you own business eating my breakfast and now I have to clean cereal and milk off the wall.
    The short answer is no -- agreeing that others should be in the dock with him, is not the same as supporting him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 3 months ago
    He'd have to do a 180 degree change, but then, even if he did, given past performances, how could anyone trust him? So...the answer is no, never.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Riftsrunner 4 years, 3 months ago
    As soon as I saw how he got to be in an electable position, no fricking way. And his wife is worse. She wrote papers in college about how she couldn't get ahead in this country because she didn't know the right people. Yeah, well I guess having a father who was a political hack in Chicago didn't give you a step up into the looters guild. She became friends with Valerie Jarrett, who groomed her and her husband to be the master looters they are. She almost got the University of Chicago's accreditation to practice medicine revoked because she came up with a cost saving plan that essentially was a "send poor sick people to other hospitals" and since UoC got federal grant money specifically to treat these people it was theft pure and simple. Oh, and that job was a totally nonessential position because it was created for her, and as soon as she needed to move on to DC, the job no longer needed to be filled and was eliminated.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Mamaemma 4 years, 3 months ago
      Are you aware that Moochelle voluntarily surrendered her license to practice law only when the case was in court to take her license, and she realized she was going to have the license taken away. By doing a voluntary surrender, the court records were sealed.
      Makes me wonder what she did. I can tell you they would not move to take away the license of a black female without good reason.
      Also, Obama voluntarily surrendered his license as well. He lied on the application, saying he had never been known by any other name.
      So both our president and first lady (holding my nose) have no license to practice law.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 4 years, 3 months ago
    Apparently so. (If that had said 'a dedicated objectivist' I'd have answered differently.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
      But if you were a citizen of the real gulch would you not have to follow the objectivist philosophy. Therefore isnt a dedicated gulch member almost synonmous?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 4 years, 3 months ago
        No... cuz this isn't the real gulch.. if it were, this wouldn't even be up for debate. lol
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 3 months ago
          True. However I like the idea where we can share intellect among like minded people who share similar objectives.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 4 years, 3 months ago
            yes, but there is a learning curve in here. many "gulchers" identify with the movies. that is a starting point. :) your work is ahead of you. You are part of the idea "front" today I talked with a New York restaurateur. he has two successful restaurants. they just passed a law in the city, businesses are required to pay a 2% tax (based on payroll) for the subway system. He said-revolution. i want to be on the front lines. we said to him-be on the front line of ideas. No longer do you agree to comments such as no politics with a dinner party. no longer do you say no politics and work, no politics and happy hour. Ideas need to OUT
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LetsShrug 4 years, 3 months ago
              Wow. The idea revolution. Be on the front line. We can win the world.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by sumitch 4 years, 3 months ago
                We could hope. But with a very large percent of the world with their hand out, I'm hesitant to say yes. I think a supportive example could me the current Greece.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by LetsShrug 4 years, 3 months ago
                  Sooner or later there's nothing to hand out... other peoples' money runs out, and either those with their hands out wake up...or they don't. Choices have consequences. (Or they should have consequences, these days there is no real consequence for being a lazy mooch, but that won't last forever.)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by BobFreeman 4 years, 3 months ago
        Not rhe Political Branch of Objectivism. While the politics of Objectivism never progressed beyond the mythical ‘limited government’ concept, the Gulch was totally voluntaryist … NO State in the Gulch
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  winterwind 4 years, 3 months ago
    no. just....no.
    no. support.
    and this "support" includes actual material support as well. hungry? cold? wet? go through that door there, on the left where you see the woman with the "Tyranny Response Team" shirt on, with the holstered .45.
    NEXT?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo