10

And the Survey SAYS...

Posted by sdesapio 10 years, 9 months ago to Entertainment
233 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

A few weeks ago we asked you, the Atlas Shrugged community, to fill out an anonymous online survey. Thousands of you responded and, while we will NEVER divulge any personally identifiable information about any of our members, following are some very interesting meta results.

Gulch, here's who we are...

- - -

Sex
29% Female
71% Male

- - -

Age
6% Under 30
26% 30-49
43% 50-65
23% Over 65

- - -

Marital Status
15% Single
4% Cohabitating
66% Married
10% Divorced
2% Widowed

- - -

Political Affiliation
2% Democrat
18% Independent
23% Libertarian
35% Republican
16% Tea Party

- - -

Voted in the 2012 Presidential Election
93% Voted
3% Did not vote
3% Not registered to Vote

- - -


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by dennyem 10 years, 9 months ago
    The one thing I didn't like on episodes 1 and 2 was having different actors/esses in each episode. I'm still waiting (im)patiently for episode 3 however.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JBW 10 years, 9 months ago
    Take into account that your statistics are heavily biased by being only people who have an interest in Atlas Shrugged, and whose thinking would have been influenced by her philosophy.
    Jim Wright
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by kabir203 10 years, 9 months ago
    Well as a 14 yr old male I have to say that I HIGHLY disagree with that comment below against women... I do hope you know that women are getting more degrees than men, higher degrees in better schools than men, and that twice as many unmarried women are buying houses than unmarried men..
    Also, and this just may be because I come from Northern Virginia, an extremely liberal democratic area, but this one-sided, us-versus-them, judge-from-view type of mentality is exactly why republicans have a bad name and why younger people are leaning towards the democratic party
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 9 months ago
      I spent most of my life in NoVa-Arlington, Annandale, went to VCU, so know of what you speak. Interestingly, both of my sisters-in-law have advanced degrees, and have purchased their own homes. And no, even though I went to an art school, I'm NOT a liberal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostsierra 10 years, 9 months ago
    Not surprised at the survey results. When I was 18, men outnumbered female Randians by about 4 to 1 or so. This men are now seniors or nearly so. The same ratio more or less. (I am not a Randian). This tells me Randians have done a piss poor job of marketing. Most, if they don't get their way on everything, take their ball and go home, losing by default. The piss poor ticket sales of ASI and II show there is no large group about to join their party. If you want a lot of Randians, get married young, have five kids and stay married. Most Randians I knew were single; the married had no kids and couldn't stay married.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by BambiB 10 years, 9 months ago
      Alternatively, women know what they want (a free lunch) and no amount of marketing is going to get them to give it up. They're going to ride this Country all the way to the bottom - and when it crashes, they'll look around in surprise and say, "How can we be broke? There are still checks left in the checkbook!"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ShruginArgentina 10 years, 8 months ago
        A the moment BambiB's post IS the bottom line!

        PS: I ignored this thread after the stats were posted. I'm very glad I revisited it tonight.

        BambiB: I've enjoyed reading your posts here more than in any other topic in the Gulch!

        You OWN this one ;-)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JBW 10 years, 9 months ago
    Hi, All:

    As a long time Objectivist, I am totally in favor of doing what John Galt did, but I see nobody doing anything of the kind, except Ron Paul, perhaps, although he’s not one of us (unless it’s undercover). He is conducting his own Revolution, despite being shackled by being a Christian. However, he is fighting for much of what we are wishing for. But, “wishing will not make it so”.

    I propose that we back Dr. Paul for the next two, or more, years, and then run an Objectivist for President in 2016! We need to get the story of Objectivism out to the world at large, it’s Metaphysics, it’s Epistemology, it’s Ethics, it’s Politics’, even it’s Esthetics. And do it as a “Crash Program”! We really don’t have a lot of time.

    As our Bible what better book than Leonard Pickoff’s “Objectivism; the Philosophy of AYN RAND”? Her novels are important but only “for easy reading” along with lectures and speeches promoting Objectivism. Philosophers of Objectivism should be retained to write a series of (say) ten lectures (each?) which covered the basics of the philosophy, showing the average man/woman what it is and what it means to him/her. (Copies of the lectures should be made available.)

    I have a strong belief in the average American that he/she would understand and respond, if it were explained to him/her in terms of its effectiveness and fairness and reasonableness, etc., etc. He/she is the juror on Howard Roark’s jury, or the average worker on the Taggert Transcontinental.

    ???

    Jim Wright
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
      welcome Jim.
      "For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement." AR
      and after that, she ripped into Libertarians. lol
      Objectivism is a philosophy, not a political party. The war of ideas will not be won through a midterm election
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JBW 10 years, 9 months ago
        Ayn Rand was not running for political office, and I believe one has to belong to some group in order to have an office in which to be put? Perhaps Independent would do?

        Jim
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by grizzld 10 years, 9 months ago
    Only 2% democrats in the survey pretty much identifies who and what they represent in the context of the Atlas Shrugged story.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 9 months ago
      I don't think one can read Shrugged without it having a deep impact on your life... I do know socialist communists (real ones, not just calling names) whose motto is "F*** John Galt"... and despise Ayn Rand. I thought about this, and realized - the hatred is that Ayn, and Shrugged, exposes them for who they really are, and, as they say, the truth hurts! I also believe that they fear being exposed for what they are, and work hard to quash the truth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
      I wonder what part of that 2% would identify as socialist.
      look at how the rest divide out. you can tell gulchers are a herd of cats :)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by XenokRoy 10 years, 9 months ago
        I was surprised to see 2 percent. I mean what in the democratic party is related to small government? I can see nothing.

        Republicans only have a little association with small government, but there is at least some talk there.

        I do have a hard time seeing how one can be associated with both the democratic party and the a radian group. The two seem rather opposite from one and other to me.
        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 BambiB 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.

    Your comments betray a lack of understanding of science as great as the lack of understanding of Mormons by those who say, "The only reason to be a Mormon is to shtup multiple wives". The two are equally valid.

    For openers, the greatest desire of most scientists is to discover something that no other scientist has yet revealed - and if it's something completely at odds with everything we thought we knew, so much the better. This is the absolute opposite of anyone in the clergy of any religion and in stark contrast to the desires of the devout. Sure, a lot of science is learned "using the same books" - but that's because it's not likely that the fundamentals will ever be overturned. 1+1=2. Fight that all you want, but you won't get far.

    The major difference between science and religion is HOW people know things. Religionists read things in a book and "believe in their hearts" that it's true. They never think about it. They're never critical. They just accept it. Dissent is officially discouraged, and if your theory doesn't fit official dogma, at some point, you're just cast out - regardless of the evidence.

    Scientists review (and perhaps repeat) experiments that explain aspects of the physical universe. A prime example of the difference between religion and science was the report a couple years ago that a project at CERN had detected neutrinos traveling faster than light. The commonly accepted science is that no physical object can travel faster than light - so there was a bit of an uproar. The general consensus was that IF it was true, it would upend much of what we thought we knew. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

    And yet, the scientific community embraced the challenge. They tried to replicate the results. They analyzed the project and they hoped to learn the TRUTH. No one was punished or cast out for challenging the accepted standard.

    Compare that to what would have happened in any religious context. For centuries, anyone daring to counter the preachings of their church was labeled a "heretic". Many were torture, burned to death, crucified or cast out of their church. The Mormons aren't any different. If you stand up in church and make announcements that new evidence proves Joseph Smith was a con man, a horse thief and a liar, odds are, you WON'T be invited to discuss your heresy in a civil manner.

    Where are religions' repeatable experiments? There are none. Where is the proof of religion? There is none. There are only stories. You cannot validate any religion by doing the experiments yourself.

    Then there's the REAL appeal to ignorance: "Why do we have eyelashes? If you don't know, then science must be invalid and god must exist!" Hogwash! I can immediately think of one evolutionary advantage: The eyelashes are a "warning system" for the eye itself. Something touching the eyelash prompts one to blink, perhaps preserving the eye from damage. When did the first eyelashes evolve? I don't know. But I won't ask you to have faith that we will know some day, because it's possible we never will.

    I'm not jousting with your straw man.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And yet, you have no evidence that god does NOT exist. Seriously. Let's see your case. Once again (and hopefully you get it this time) the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that there's no proof that god(s) exist is not proof that no god(s) exist. You have to do better.

    The fact that the "other side" keeps coming up with hair brain "proofs" does not mean you are correct. As an (admittedly imperfect) example, suppose the religionists attempted to prove that pi was equal to 2, then 15, then 56... you could easily prove them wrong. But that does not mean that pi is equal to whatever number you say it is. If you say pi is equal to 3, and successfully prove that pi is not equal to the infinite number of real numbers that exist between 4 and 5, you're just as wrong as they are! You have to PROVE your case, or it has no more validity than the pro-god arguments.

    And that's my point. No one... Not the buddhists, or the christians or the shintoists, or the druids, or the atheists, or the satanists - have proven their case. None has evidence that is empirically better than the other. The most anyone can say - logically, rationally, honestly - is they do not know whether there is a god or not. My personal belief is there is no god. But I'm honest enough to say that belief is only a personal opinion.

    And yes, I understand and generally accept the premise of Occam's Razor. But it's not an immutable law of the universe. Take classical physics. It's very simple. You have electrons and neutrons and protons whizzing around making up matter... until some goofball named Richard Feynman comes along and makes the entire thing a lot more complicated with stories about quarks - and not just quarks - up quarks, down quarks, strange quarks with color and spin and charm (oh MY!) Was the simpler explanation of classical physics correct? Yes. As far as it went. But the more you look at it, the more complex the question becomes.

    We pretty much know everything there is to know about classical physics. But there are still some very critical question about quantum physics that remain unanswered. I submit that had we stopped with "the simplest" explanation, we would have missed the entire picture... and so it is with the "god" debate. The fact that all of your opponents are wrong is not proof that you are right. To think otherwise would be a logical fallacy that assumes that the set of positions so far advanced was in fact the universe of all possible positions. Until you've defeated every single version of "god" that can be proposed (my personal favorite is that "god" is a purple dinosaur who runs around singing, "I love you, you love me" - but who didn't have the foresight to get his book out before the other guys), you have NOT proven your case.

    Let me make that even more clear: In order to prove there is NO god, you must prove that every single possible god construct is FALSE. Not just today's established religions. Not just belief sets that may have fallen into disfavor. Not just the individual personal belief sets of every person on the planet, or who has every lived in the history of the planet, but every conceivable (and perhaps even inconceivable) description of god that anyone (including life forms on other planets, or in other universes) might have of god, including the idea that "god" may simply have created our universe with no more concern than someone tossing an apple core out the window of a moving car - that the seeds sprouted and we now enjoy the benefits of what (to god) was inconsequential act of no importance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 8 months ago
      Oh, I get it every time.
      Please check out Mr. Locke on your choice of argument:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...
      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 BambiB 10 years, 8 months ago
        "The statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was made popular by Carl Sagan. ... Sagan's general position was that "science is saying in the absence of evidence, we must withhold judgment"

        PRECISELY.

        Science (or religion for that matter) presents no evidence for or against the existence of god. Therefore, we must withhold judgment - which is what agnostics do. Another way of saying that is, "There's not enough evidence, so I don't know."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LeeCrites 10 years, 8 months ago
          This quote most likely is in reference to a statement in Carl Sagan's book "Science as a Candle in the Dark." If memory serves, he was actually quoting Martin Rees. He is speaking of the "Appeal to Ignorance" logical argument. This is the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true and/or whatever has not been proven true must be false. Are there flying reindeer? Nobody has ever observed them, but that does not prove they do not exist.

          Irving Copi, in his book "Informal Logic" argued that there are circumstances where it can be assumed that if something exists or something occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by researchers who are qualified and knowledgeable. In those cases, it is perfectly legitimate to state that the absence of proof of the existence or occurrence is positive proof of the non-occurrence. Therefore, since no biologist or aircraft pilot or naturalist has ever observed a reindeer flying about, denying the potential of flying reindeer is a legitimate deduction.

          At the same time, James Randi's assertion that "you cannot prove a negative" slaps both of them in the face. Neither the Sagan/Rees or the Copi statements can be true in Randi's paradigm. His assertion is that unless every single reindeer on the planet has been personally checked and proven incapable of flight, it is never a legitimate claim to say a flying reindeer does not exist. This is the train of thought BambiB used above -- unless every single potential construct of anything resembling a god has been tested and found to fail, it cannot be asserted that there is no god.

          All three have very limited application, though. In probability theory, for instance, the Sagan/Rees comment is false. If you are playing cards, just because you have not seen the ace of spades does not mean it has not been played.

          In criminal justice, just because there were no witnesses to an event does not mean the event did not happen. It is, however, quite possible to "prove" something did NOT happen. Thus all three are potentially wrong.

          In medical research, just because no patients had a particular reaction does not mean that reaction does not mean it is not a potential risk. It can, however, be proven that a particular regimen will not perform, thus Randi's assertion is false.

          And, finally, when it comes to deity, there is, by definition, a personal aspect to the belief. If one chooses to not believe, there is no proof which will be persuasive. If they choose to believe, there is no proof which can be dissuasive. Logic fails where faith abounds.
          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 BambiB 10 years, 8 months ago

            Correct. In point of fact, if you want to prove there's no such thing as flying reindeer, it does not suffice to say, "no one has seen one".

            And yes, if researchers are able to limit the universe of possibilities, eliminating each element in that universe DOES prove non-existence... within that universe of possibilities.

            The "proof" there are no flying reindeer does not hold - unless you can prove that if flying reindeer did exist, they MUST have been seen by biologists, aircraft pilots or naturalists.

            More to the point, is this a real species? http://english.people.com.cn/mediafile/2... How about this: http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf...

            Oh wait, prior to 2008, neither species had been observed by a biologist, aircraft pilot or naturalist. But they both been discovered since. Along with dozens of other species. So the "no one has seen one" argument doesn't... "fly".

            Regards the "Ace of Spades", assuming a fair deck, the universe of all possibilities is KNOWN. If someone could define 52 possible varieties of god, then it would likely be possible to prove (or disprove) the existence of god... that is if testable hypotheses are possible.

            In criminal justice, it's possible to prove something did NOT happen by proving a mutually-exclusive event DID happen. "My client cannot be guilty of a murder at midnight on New Years in Germany because he was in an interview on television in Times Square". Of course, this does not address the "absence of evidence" comment.

            In the medical case, the universe of possible reactions is not known. Therefore, the absence of evidence (in a subset of the population) is not (conclusive) evidence of absence. It may tend to make the likelihood of reactions more or less likely (the same as flying reindeer).

            Regards the existence/absence of a diety - it is ENTIRELY a personal belief - unsupported by objective evidence.

            "Logic fails where faith abounds." is equivalent to "faith is illogical".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eron 10 years, 9 months ago
    Human Nature ! Ayn Rand exposes Human Nature ! If I were an American , I would vote Democrat ! Government will always oppose the Corporate State ! The Bureaucrat will always oppose the Individual ! Edward Snowden ?! Who hasn't seen a starving child ? Who hasn't seen someone executed ? Who believes that Humans are righteous in their causes ? I know both good and bad Capitalists !
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -5
    Posted by cseidman 10 years, 9 months ago
    I can see why so few poll respondents self-identified as Democrats... but REPUBLICANS? TEA PARTIERS? These are the jerks who pose as advocates of freedom but insist on shoving their infantile religious beliefs down our throats and also feed at the government trough (see Halliburton & Richard Cheney) at every opportunity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
      the cronyism is washington both sides of the aisle. what has Obama done to lessen the feeding at the trough? look at annual spending today-we're supposedly moving out of the war business. I am a proud tea party and an atheist. check your premises before you spout off in here. if you want to add to the debate, consider making reasoned points that can be argued rationally. Blind hatred is sooooo non-pc of you
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Darcie 10 years, 9 months ago
      Look at the demographic of responders. You'll not the largest number are between 50 and 65 years old. Old schoolers who remember when Republicans were the Libertarians if today. Not living in the past necessarily, but rather remembering when it was a good thing to live by Republican values. It wasn't that long ago. Btw, I am 60 years old and a. 'lifetime' Republican. I have strong Lubertarian leanings but am concerned about the 'collective' valueless nature of Libertarisnism. What do they stand for? What do they believe in, anarchy. Ayn Rand was no Libertarian. She wrote a great essay as to why.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dirty_industrialist 10 years, 9 months ago
      As a Randian, I have a big problem with the Tea Partiers and some sects of the Republican party and believe they are indeed trying to force feed me and other Americans with their fundamentalist religion, as they support the government taking over my reproductive rights and banning legal abortions. As a 50+ year old female, I have fought too hard all my adult life for the rights of women, including that of ownership of our own bodies. Look up what Ayn has to say about it if you won't take my word for it. Don't try and tell me you're a Randian and a Tea Partier...that's an oxymoron. Have yet to meet a Tea Partier who does more than try to lure me in with promises of fiscal repsonsibility only to turn around and then try to get your legislative hands on my uterus. Check your premise indeed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by traderpards 10 years, 9 months ago
        I'm glad you have fought for the rights of women - those over 10 months of age and the rights of those less than 10 months of age be damned. As a Tea Partier, I couldn't care less about your silly little uterus. But I do care about those innocent babies who can't defend themselves. I only wish you did as well. And for what it's worth, Tea Party principles have nothing to do with your dopey little uterus. If some self-described tea party person starts talking about abortion, they've left the tea party "plantation" and ventured out on his/her own.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 9 months ago
          Isn't that a little like claiming that TP supporters who make anti-abortion comments are all just "anecdotal"?

          Doesn't look that way to me. Any more than anti-abortion Conservative Republicans are "anecdotal."

          My observations lead me to a fair generalization that those are truths.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
            could you explain further, plusaf? Pro life has not been a big agenda item at tea party gatherings I have been at in Colorado Springs. I am not saying that tea party attenders do not have strong feelings about the issue, but what brings everyone together is a strong belief in limited govt, cut govt spending, and onerous taxation. Support the Constitution and repeal laws which are unconstitutional.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 9 months ago
              How is plusaf to reply further? Every time someone around here reads something they don’t like they take the person's points away. Plusaf’s comment will be gone before too long, and we won’t know what or who you are responding to. This is what I meant when I voiced a complaint a week ago about members not being receptive to opinions that they don’t share. I understand how passionate people can get about abortion, but this is why the democrats have the youth and the minority vote. Democrats are all inclusive. In fact, the only thing democrats are against is smaller government, which leaves us the Republicans who have broke the faith with the American public by failing to provide or create smaller government over and over again for decades now. Jeeze Loiuse, they ran Mitt Romney for christsakes. Mitt Romney, the man with a plan; the man who would save us from the government takeover of health care by instituting his own form of government health care??? That’s why the Republicans lost the election. Not because, women didn’t like him or latinos didn’t like him, but because he wasn’t going to get the federal government out of the health care industry. The Republicans threw away the most important election of our lifetime. I think I’m straying from point. I’m getting too rattled. Lol. Anyway, kudos to you, khaling, for being open-minded.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
                I am certainly not dinging plusaf. I just straight up did not understand the comment. clearly they felt tea party events were synonymous with pro-life events and I wondered if that was the case in other cities. It had not been my experience. In the end, plu said he/she gathered impressions from the web. I just want to correct wrong assumptions out there that tea party movement is a new name for moral majority. It is not. Events I have participated in are chock full of libertarians and some youth. My adult son for one.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 9 months ago
                  I can supply a link for plusaf. Pro-lifers have been there since the beginning of the Tea Party.

                  ETA: I did have a link; I actually had two. The second went to error, and the first magically became a pro-life favorable link. I give up. Something is screwy here. My fist article was about the Republican candidate in Indiana in 2010 who lost Tea Party backing because he was not pro-life. He was blasted at a Tea Party rally by the pro-life faction. But in all fairness, we are too large of a country to all sit down at the same table.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
                    I went to the link. where is it? did you edit this comment? we all have to decide what issues are the most important. I do not support candidates who put their religion as a legislative tool on the table. I will be honest, though, my pro-choice stance does not trump my economic freedom stance in a candidate or platform. Politically, I align with libertarian. I see a push to make tea party a political party-but I feel that actually goes against how it came to be in the first place. and many times we have been burned by backing "tea party" candidates-because we followed the label and did not look into the substance of the candidate's background. Whenever you see increases in freedom, therefore, wealth, you will see more options for a pregnant woman considering abortion. That there is a huge societal disconnect between the number of families clamoring for babies-so much so they look to ther countries, pay thousands, wait years-and an increase of abortions at the same time is economically absurd. I suspect, in part, this is due to abortion clinics receiving subsidies to operate from the federal govt. No democrat will say stop that practice. But if we did-stop subsidizing abortion clinics-that alone would go to narrowing the chasm between women seeking abortions and families seeking babies. Carrying a baby to term could possibly pay for job training, some college, a car to get to work, health insurance....But of course, many on the religious right completely ignore this fact in their zeal to overturn Roe v Wade.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 9 months ago
                      I’m sorry but I deleted the link. I tried it again and the original story was gone and replaced with a story about ending racist abortions? I was not comfortable with the sudden hijacking of my link, by persons or websites unknown. It worked for about five minutes before the hijacking. Anyway, I’m old-school when it comes to personal decisions like abortion. It’s not anybody else's business. The Supreme ruled that they didn’t have the authority to force a woman to have a baby, because legally that could be interpreted to mean the federal government had the authority to take a way a woman’s ability to have a baby. Obviously, anyone who understands how important individual rights are has to be able to see how incredibly well decided Roe versus Wade was. I haven’t been to a Tea Party rally, but the ones around me are the big ones, like the one recently over the IRS scandal. I just don’t feel like jumping into the mix. I think George Kennan had the right of it when he talked about how a democracy will not last if the one government gets too big while the population grows exponentially. At some point we might break down then evolve into eight to ten governments like he speculated. It’s going to be a looog century.;)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
                        I actually got the correct link. I am mulling discussing this issue from another angle(s). instead of pro life! pro choice! I would like to get down to why is it, a wealthy country like ours with families paying more money than any other country in the world for adopting babies still has the large number of abortions our country has. There are specific reasons for this. I'd like an intelligent discussion on those reasons.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
                    I am not suggesting members of one group are not members of another. Just because the candidate chose a tea party event to make his statements does not mean the tea party event was actively discussing and promoting pro-life. Mimi, have you ever attended a rally or event put on by a tea party or libertarian group? even if, a booth were set up promoting anti-abortion, if you did not want to stop at the booth , sail right on past. The important thing here is the speakers at the rally. Speakers at rallys I have attended-and let me be clear-Colorado Springs is home to Focus On the Family- pro life is NOT on the agenda. Limited govt is. You wouldn't have libertarian groups affiliating otherwise. I am not suggesting that is how it is everywhere, just my personal observations.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
        I don't know why I'm even responding here, but YOU may check out my comments on abortion if you'd like. POINT IS- Legislative hands are already ALL over my uterus!!
        Some religious influence tries to co-op tea party for a religious agenda. that is not the original grass roots movement of tea party. There is much we can agree on.
        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 BambiB 10 years, 9 months ago
          Personally, I don't think abortion is the biggest issue facing us today. I'd start with government corruption. I could probably list a dozen elected politicians who should be impeached, tried, convicted and HUNG!

          The second biggest problem is related to the first: The top-down power structure that has the Feral government making decisions for every community in the Nation. I see this as a direct (and indirect) result of the Supreme's decision in Wickard v. Filburn where they basically decided that every action that "affects" interstate commerce, regardless of how tangential or trivial the effect, is itself "interstate commerce" and subject to congressional control. Whether you have sex with your wife is, under this definition, "interstate commerce" because you may or may not have a child who will someday buy or sell or do something that will affect interstate commerce.

          To resolve a large portion of this Country's woes, the first step should be to hold politicians accountable (as in, "send the crooks to prison"). The second step should be to cut the Federal government back to its Constitutional roots - that is, slash its budget by 85%-95%. If a power is not explicitly granted by the Constitution, it is not a legitimate power of the Feral government.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dirty_industrialist 10 years, 9 months ago
          Thank you khalling for putting a fine point on what I really wanted to say here. Don't come to me wearing the "we are for less government, more freedom" coat, and/or pose as a follower of Randian philosophy...and then also tell me that it is the governement's job to legislate away my personal freedom to either have or not have a child. Not all abortions are for irresponsible women who use it as their preferred method of birth control...it can be a choice made for the health of the woman more often than that. I just find that the pro-life movement has that element of "we know better than you do what is good for you so we will govern you accordingly" attitude that is SO not Randian and espouses the very attitudes that brought about corruption, chaos and collapse in Atlas. And when you add in the fact that pro-life people feel the need to be condescending, rather than respectful and on-point in their counterpoint arguements (I am looking at YOU, traderpards)....that tells me that this is not someone who truly understands the philosophy of freedom that Ms. Rand stands for at all.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
            the people who contribute on this forum with regularity are very respectful until someone comes in throwing around generalizations with no substantiation. I asked you to check out my comments. You obviously did not. You have the right to make your decisions regarding your body. period. Do not imagine THIS site is something that it's not. This is clearly a subject you feel strongly about. I get it. We know something about you. Do not, however, come in only to tell us who we are-which you have no clue. you've been here, what? 5 minutes? There is a point system. Look over to the right there. If there's a bunch of non"-randian" commenting going on, those gulchers would have negative points.
            and you still haven't told me how you can be so hot on the abortion issue and totally ignore how Obamacare owns your body now.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dirty_industrialist 10 years, 9 months ago
              I think you totally mis-read MY post khalling..I agree with what you said in your last post. I was trying to thank you (obviously not very clearly) in this particular thread for being the one person I felt was making sense. I have been here a lot longer than 5 minutes, btw, I just don't comment often unless I feel I have something to say. To further compound confusion, I assumed from the flow of this that you were asking the poster directly above you to check out your comments, not me...so you are correct, I didn't. I do not feel well versed enough to comment on Obamacare...I don't curretnly live in the US (have not for almost 35 years) and only know a bit about it, and have not had time to do more balanced research. Although from what I have read and deduced, I would also wholeheartedly agree with your observation on that as well...just as bad as taking away the right to a legal abortion. I don't like the interference of government on how my healthcare is provided any better than I do the interference of religioius beliefs in governance. Obama is nothing but a snake oil salesman (in my opinion) and has sold a lot of personal freedom out the back door while people are brainwashedly cheering him on as he does so. So maybe we have a lot more in common than you think. However, I will be honest that I don't have the time to go searching all over this forum for anyone's comments in other threads to get their opinion on a particular issue. Doesn't mean what you have to sya isn;t important, just that I can only spend so much time here on a workday. In addition, my original point was not about Obamacare to begin with, but my assertion that I had a hard time rectifying how a person could follow the Tea Party's principles (in totality...obviously, many do not) and still call themselves a follower of Randian principles and philosophy. Which is a question that also still goes unanswered while people take potshots and personally jump on other posters. So please if you have something to say on the topic of how government repealing the legality of abortion can be part of any Randian's philosophy, as relevant to my original post, then please say it here if you would like to weigh in on it and/or add info to the question. As for respect...I would refer you back to traderpards comments. I didn't find them the least bit respectful, nor contributory. They were just plain snarky and condescending and that does nothing to further real discussion. If you feel I am generalizing without substantiation, then say so and ask me to substantiate something. Let's stick to topic instead of trying to make an infrequent poster feel like they aren't cool enough to sit at the cool kids' lunch table and speak. That does not foster productive conversation.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
                here's the dynamic. on newsletter day or any mass email thing or FB thing they do to alert people to the gulch, we get all sorts of onetime posters. the person to whom you're referring is probably one. we also get a flurry of provocateurs. so these particular posts will not represent, on whole, the makeup of the gulch. Abortion is testy subject in here. Primarily because most come here initially because they watched the movie(s). They loved the book. Even Objectivists argue this issue. As I've stated in this post, I believe the best resolve to this issue should not be to legislate but rather to focus on the economic and regulatory concerns. Address those and you will see abortions dramatically decrease in the US.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dirty_industrialist 10 years, 9 months ago
                  thanks for the explanation of that. Unfortunate for me I guess, that I chose my time to infrequent-post, and a subject to post about, that made me look like a fly-by, a newbie or a Philosophy-by-last-movie-watched type. Not so. My husband and I are now on our third copy of AS, many of her philosophy books, and The Fountainhead as they've disintegrated from re-reads. :) I would agree that focusing on the economics./regulatory concerns of abortion may solve some of the "need"...but I would still contend that there are situations where it is not about money...(i.e. basically paying a woman, or making it worth her while economically, to continue to term) so that someone else can have the resultant baby instead of aborting the fetus. There are times when the health and/or very life of a woman is at stake if a pregnancy continues...and my entire belief in legal access to abortion is based on this very scenario. I too take life seriously and disdain irresponsible sexual activity. In my philosophy however...I believe that women (as well as men, but this is about a female issue) should have the choice on the state of their own health as a result of either continuing or aborting a pregnancy. Let's face it...rape and accidents happen, even to people who are responsible. Whether there is Obamacare or not ( I vote NOT). I see the freedom to determine the course of one's own health to be a pretty basic one that should never be interfered with by government. I would ask you then, because I cannot reconcile it in my head, how a person could espouse personal freedom and yet want to control the health decisions of another....which is maybe what I should have asked in the first place. That has always been my problem with a vocal (however small it may be) part of the political right in both the US and Canada...why does religious fundamentalism so often end up paired with fiscal responsibility and otherwise freedom-enhancing policies on their platforms? It doesn't make sense to me....and I think it alienates a lot of potential supporters, if we have to take fiscal responsibility wrapped in a bible. Ayn herself was an atheist, was she not...and objectivism and even agnosticism are incompatible if we embrace it fully... http://www.atlassociety.org/atheism-agno......
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 9 months ago
                    Greetings dirty_industrialist,

                    We have a mixed bag here. All but some of the trolls value parts if not the whole philosophy; but few are truly doctrinaire. Some accept all except the abortion position and/or the atheism. We are generally glad to have them here regardless as they examine their premises they may or may not change their opinions; yet it is of benefit for all exposed to the discussion.

                    The tea party is not monolithic either. The common thread is the desire for a limited government that does not take from the producers that which is their property.

                    I do feel that some of your statements are generalizations. For instance, are all pro-life people condescending? I believe that would be most difficult to quantify and prove. Even if so, it would not be a convincing argument. It would be an ad-hominem/generalization and no more persuasive than condescension. Your comment regarding the tea partiers and their principles also leave me wondering. I see many who are pro-life, but I would call it a generalization to apply it as common principle or a “platform” of such a diverse group. Nor would I call them all racists because the MSM will go to great lengths to find the one idiot with an offensive sign to broadcast.

                    If you expect everyone on this board to be doctrinaire, then this would indeed be a dull place to be since there would be no need for discussion. Everyone would think the same anyway. Some of us are still developing our philosophy while others are firm in our beliefs. Such is the nature of a public forum.

                    Please keep expressing and supporting your positions with rational arguments and your argument will be won in the eyes of import.

                    I have enjoyed the discussion.

                    Respectfully,
                    O.A.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dirty_industrialist 10 years, 9 months ago
                      Hello OA...my remarks about condescension were not aimed at any general group (i.e. all pro-lifers), but at one poster above who was very much so. I would wholeheartedly agree that is a huge generallization, which I make every effort to avoid. I suppose that I must now prove myself to be so, but I am NOT a troll here. I am a very passionate and curious follower of this philosophy, and this story. It may just be the particular TPs I was exposed to, but in my personal experience, every one of them was also of fundamentalist christian persuasion, ergo, my assumption...however, I have learned since from other posters here that it is indeed NOT the case for all, which I do find encouraging as someone who likes the separation of church and state. :) Have a great weekend.
                      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 BambiB 10 years, 9 months ago
        While I generally agree with the overall sentiment of "Tea Partiers" (we have too much government), they seem to fit one definition of "fanatic", that being, "one who doubles their effort and loses sight of their goal".

        In truth, I am often surprised at how entire groups of people seem to forget what their goals are - and how easily sidetracked they are. There seems to be nowhere, except among the enemies of freedom - any single-minded drive towards... anything.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by fosterj717 10 years, 9 months ago
      It takes a really small and simplistic mind to come up with that infantile pablum. I suspect that you are one of the 2% who identify themselves as Democrats (or worse). The truth really does hurt doesn't it? Especially when you can't come back with a 'grown-up' reply.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by nomark 10 years, 9 months ago
      You are not much of a freedom lover if you find the need to criticize how others exercise their freedoms. And you are not much of an adult if you refer to others as jerks and infantile. Are you really a closet democrat who proclaims "freedom" just as long as it's what you believe? And why do you feel so threated by people who believe in God/Christ? Do they not have the same rights you claim you do? Or are only non-believers free to exercise their first amendment rights?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by cseidman 10 years, 9 months ago
        I could not care less about anybody's religion, but I do value everybody's freedom to practice it - OR NOT. So why is "In God We Trust" on my money? Why does the evangelical right think they can impose their values on women's health decisons? Why do some of your "freedom loving" friends want to destroy school science teaching with fairy tales about Adam, Eve, Jonah, Noah and Co. as "alternatives" to actual science? Religious people can exercise their rights as much as they want to, but not when they step all over mine.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 9 months ago
          why do the democrats think they can impose rights on ALL health decisions? why do democrats want us all to learn the "PUBLIC EDUCATION" way? PUSH "alternatives to ACTUAL science by teaching "environmentalism"? Destroy History with revisionist nonsense. push social science like "civics" courses, require community service as a prereq for college admissions?
          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 BambiB 10 years, 9 months ago
          Actually, I think it would be very interesting to include a week or two where science meets religion in the classroom. An explanation of the scientific method - applying it to religion - would be most instructive. Conversely, applying the "religious method" to science (locking up Galileo because he said the earth was not the center of the universe, and the sun did not revolve around the earth) would also be instructive.

          Then a demonstration of the two systems: The scientists can predict and demonstrate while the religious types could show how their beliefs operate by praying a miracle into being.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by traderpards 10 years, 9 months ago
      Actually, you're the "jerk" if you care to refer to someone's religious beliefs as "infantile." Nobody, I mean NOBODY is shoving anything down your throat unless it's the president who is shoving Obamacare down all of our throats.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by cseidman 10 years, 9 months ago
        So you think "infantile" was a poor choice of words? I work in the sciences, and when some so-called conservative advocates teaching kids about Noah's Ark and Adam & Eve as plausible alternatives to natural selection, then I think "infantile" is a kind word. I am an older person, and I read Ayn Rand at about the same time Barry Goldwater was first making national impact - early 1960s. Goldwater had no patience with these Bible-thumpers, either. Or, for that matter, with guys like Cheney, who talk limited government from one side of their mouths and beg for sweetheart defense contracts out of the other.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lostsierra 10 years, 9 months ago
      Have been a Tea Party Patriot for over 2 years. We support limited guvmint, fiscal responsibility, and restoring the Constitution. We officially support no party. Patriots have their own views in other areas and belong to partys of their choice. I belong to other orgs. as well, such as NRA, Public Lands for the People, Western Mining Alliance, GPAA, Cornerstone Family Council of Idaho. Am pro-life, I vote, married with kids. Tea Party Patriots has never taken a position on pro-life and will not. We don't shove anything do anyone's throat. You are a liar, and a politically impotent one at that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo