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.

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.

I am not terribly surprised at any of the data disclosed above.

Especially about the ages of the respondents. It indeed takes some "real world" maturity for a person to realize that even the best governments are makeshift, limited benefit propositions and from that fact alone should make it a logical decision to limit the power ANY government you're dealing with.

I'm a Jeffersonian, the original "small government" guy, so my political affiliation wasn't represented- not surprisingly.

One question, aren't divorced people considered single if they aren't married anymore?

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.

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.

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.

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.

sigh. sometimes I wonder if we are going to devolve into city states. even Hong Kong is well aware if they draw the line on what China can suck off their teat, the "understanding" will end.

in any non-coercive transaction both parties benefit. but this is not helping each other in any sort of altruistic sense. Nor is it doing ANYTHING for the benefit of society. There is no women bashing going on in this forum. The fact that it is brought up at all makes me suspect of the accuser. As well, busy or not, each person carves out time to accomplish what they wish to accomplish and depending on MANY factors. A "busy" woman may well decide that sharing information and promoting the ideas of Objectivism is a worthy use of time. Here is Rand on "helping wider society:"
"When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals." Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal

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.

This just kind of lkeaves me speechless. You have just insulted every single woman (ESPECIALLY the Randian ones) who has overcome the ignorance, prejudice and outright discrimination of the past 100 years or so to become leaders in creating real wealth in the real world. I depend on NO system, I make things happen through hard work, my own pocketbook, and emplying those who share my vision of making a good product for a fair price and thereby contributing to the betterment of my own life, and the 30 families that work for me. Give your head a shake. The faction of women who are "system tit suckers" is so small compared to the number of women who make shit happen, the right way, in the 21st century all over the world. I am sure that if she were here today, Ms. Rand would join me and my fellow Dagny Taggarts in flipping you the collective bird while our train passes you by.

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

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

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.

Don’t take yourself quite so seriously, you sound like someone from the state science institute. People are just having a little fun with the numbers.

Yes, there are several here from your neck of the woods. :-)

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.

Don't worry about it Amazed. It's just ignorance. People sometimes can't see the forest for the trees. Rand herself is a great example of what women can achieve.

I don't get your objection. The main characters in AS spent a lot of time helping each other. That's what the book is about. That's what the gulch is about. They don't "live for another" as they put it, but they certainly help each other and they see it as an investment in each other. In the gulch, they contribute to their own economy.

What amazed me the most was the
"Voted in the 2012 Presidential Election" 93%.

Second most surprising was the remarkably low 10% divorced figure.

I think some leading libertarians go too far with some issues. Their basic beliefs are correct, but making them work is like democracy, it just won't work over a long period. It takes too much work and people are too lazy. I don't care for the masses, but try to govern without them. Can't producers find a new world to populate and start over?

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.

Ahh, yes. I forgot it was said by two 20th century greats. I'm not touching the male/female argument above. But I'll just assume you have a heart AND grew your brain early!

I don't attend rallies. Observations are from web posts. Please don't try to drill this any deeper, ok?
thanks.

I understand that-you're saying that tea party functions you've attended, you identify most are pro-life? like they carry signs or hand out literature? I've seen little of that at actual events. speakers at events I've attended have not used the event as a pro-life rally.