It's ok, I don't expect you to change your mind, and you shouldn't expect me to change mine. I simply stated that principle is more important than toeing the line with the majority for the lesser of two evils. I've stated multiple times throughout the thread how Romney is very similar to Obama, and nothing much will change if he gets into office.

But, everyone has their beliefs and must act accordingly.

In response to your last comment which includes this;" Let me say it differently, your attempting to apply your principles in a vacuum, completely dropping all context to do so"

My applying principles into a 'vacuum' is better than dropping my principles entirely.

To quote the movie which we are all on here for:

Mr Small: "times have changed, you can't afford to live by rigid principles anymore"

Mr Rearden: "My steel wouldn't get built without rigid principles"

Finally; how far are you willing to let the government go in stripping you of your constitutional rights and taking your property at gunpoint through legislation after legislation, tax after tax?

Does it really matter if it's the republicans or the democrats? I seem to recall the republicans creating an awful lot of job killing legislation last time they were in power.

What you do is up to you. The founding fathers were stark raving mad for standing up against Britain. Perhaps the millions of libertarians out there are mad for standing up against the corrupt two party system. But there are millions of us, and the Ayn Rand Objectivist movement is growing. People are waking up.

Good luck in the polls, if Romney wins, I hope he is everything you wish him to be.

I'm sorry. I can't argue in this thread anymore. This video clearly shows how Romney and Obama are not anywhere close to the same. It frustrates me too much to argue a point that has already been proven.

None of those issues are anywhere close to a dictatorship or totalitarianism.

Let me say it differently, your attempting to apply your principles in a vacuum, completely dropping all context to do so. The best strategy to advance your principles is to make sure the anti-American pro-destruction nihilist doesn't get four more years.

As for the lesser of two evils argument, Romney is not evil simply because he doesn't agree 100% with me, just as Bush wasn't evil, just as many candidates in the past (from both sides) weren't evil. Mixed premises does not equal evil. Finally, I refer to South Park and say the vote is always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Always. And the truth of the matter is, all the third party candidates are douches too. The vote will always be between people trying to pull things in the wrong direction. Always. No, that's not cynical, that's what people whose jobs are government do--try to use government to do things.

Romney is not a nihilist, nor does your statement prove he is one. Words have meanings.

I'm with you on Ryan. voted for American Invents Act which is unconstitutional on many levels-but first ignores the constitutional requirement that Congress protect the Right of Inventors-not just the first entity to file.He voted for Sarbanes Oxley in 2002, which has ruined technological start-ups ac in this country-the largest net new job producer-because they cannot go public. We must keep up the pressure on them and so I completely understand your decision. Romney will win-those tight polls are full of it. I say that, and 100000 voting machines should have been re-calibrated, oiled, rubbed down, sequestered and held in contempt...

Neither. I can make plenty of arguments against Paul Ryan. Apparently he likes Ayn Rand, but has used none of her principles. Paul Ryan was one of the biggest supporters of all the bailouts during the Bush administration. So it was constitutional, that's cool, but it was still the blueprint for Obamacare, and they're still both fascists. I have to go, but we can debate more tomorrow. It's been fun, you guys have given me a lot to think about.

I agree with the 'anybody but Obama' remark up until the point when I remember the names 'Che, Mao, Stalin, Hitler...etc'. He is very skillful at avoiding the constitution isn't he? Again, I don't see how Romney would be better, but we'll see, maybe he'll win on Tuesday and we'll get to find out.

True, but I don't see why Mitt Romney would be any different. Every single Romney supporter's main reason for voting for him is 'he's not Obama'. I'm sorry, personally that's not good enough for me. I kind of agree with Glenn Beck on the 'man of character' remark that he made a while back ago.

With that way of thinking, what's the point of voting at all? If they always get their way and always get their man, then we really have no voice at all. Wasn't Ross Perot completely independent?

That is why I put everything I could into getting Ron Paul through the primaries. I agree with swelling the republican party, but it will take some time. Ron Paul was completely shunned during the primaries, by both the media and the republican establishment. I see a two pronged approach: Vote Gary Johnson for president, and break the 5% mark to get him huge funding for the next time around, and put the libertarians squarely on the map. And slowly, year after year, elect tea party constitutional free market patriots to the office of senators and congressmen. Perhaps by 2016 we can get Rand Paul to run as republican president, and the libertarians can join forces to push the majority. I'm thinking really long term. I honestly don't see the difference in Romney/Obama but you must do what you feel is right. And ponds have ripple effects...and there are lots of us fishing right now ;)

Yes, we can move toward more government under either Obama or Romney, or we can begin the movement that will end big government by giving Johnson and the libertarian movement the support they need to get 5% of the vote. The only thing that has been accomplished under the last two presidents has been bigger government, higher deficits and less freedoms. And those are solid facts. If Mitt Romney showed one iota of interest in really cutting government influence back, I'd vote for him in a heart beat, but he doesn't.

OK, how about the fact that he supports the patriot act? How about the fact that he said he'd double the size of Guantanamo Bay? How about the fact that he wants to keep troops in Afghanistan and said he would consider bombing Iran? How about the fact that he supports the TSA and homeland security. This doesn't sound much like a constitutional liberty loving patriot to me. More like another dictator in chief.

No, that's ridiculous. What's to say that he's right and I'm wrong? Should I do as Paul Ryan did when he was begging for banking bailouts that 'offend my principles, but I'm going to vote for it to preserve my principles"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3U8ZrThR...

First off, that makes no sense, that's another reason why I see no difference in the two parties right now.

The democrats mooch and the republicans loot. The libertarians want true free markets.

Do what you like, vote for the lesser of two evils, or for the best showman of pragmatism, I don't care, but I'm going to stick to my principles, and vote with my principles, and I'm going to make a difference no matter how small. There are many objectivists and libertarians out there, and they are sick to the back teeth of the two party system. I will not be a part of it. In my eyes the guy in the original video is dead wrong, but that's my opinion. If you want to agree with him that's just fine, and good luck to you.

Yes thank you, I know that. I don't see how an intelligent man such as Romney cannot know that his actions are bad for the free markets and the constitution, so they're both nihilists as you call them. Is Romney so blatantly ignorant that he flip flops on almost every agenda? Or does he simply not care, and will say anything to get office?

If he cannot win then voting for him will solve nothing. Casting your vote for a candidate that cannot win is just like casting a fishing line into a pond with no fish. It can be fun to sit and talk with a good friend while you fish, but your never going to catch any fish.

Reality and fact. We have a two party system. Attempting to change it through a third party has failed. We need a different approach. The tea party approach (change the republicans from within) seems to be doing more for us than a third party ever has. Our approach must be something that works.

Not sure what this "permalink" thing is in the place of where a reply button should be but since I can't actually reply to slick (2 doors down) I have to do it up here. So... thanks for sending me a Ron Paul ad...that was all out of context and spliced for slant, but here goes anyway.... I don't give a rats about abortion or how Mitt feels about it. It's not my issue (I think the entire debate over abortion makes women look ridiculous). The car company SHOULD have been left alone to fail and file proper bankruptcy (read the op-ed) for what Romney really said. The assault weapon part is the worst tid bit, but I already knew about it and since Obama would like to see us all without guns I'll vote accordingly (just read the details of that plan in Shadowbosses, related to union control and agenda for a second term). Which stimulus was he against and what kind was he for? (I'm sure they weren't the same topic, but spliced together to look like a flip flop)...Bain Capital is a non issue as well, they helped a lot of business stay afloat and some failed. That's just business and Bain was in business to make money not run a charity so some jobs went over seas..He wasn't President when those decisions were made, he was a business owner trying to keep companies alive.). Still don't see any "lies". B.O. vs Romney: Romney is American, he grew up here and he doesn't surround himself with Bill Ayres, Valerie Jarrett, Frank Marshall Davis, Jones, Holder and the Clintons..etc etc etc etc. And his wife didn't say, "This is the first time in my adult life that I'm proud of America." like Obama's wife did. --- There is no comparison. One operates like creep with an evil agenda and one runs his life like a decent American...but that's just my opinion.

Since you're repeating arguments he already refuted, yes.

It's not the fallacy of the lesser of two evils. It's the reality of what can be accomplished.

Missing the forest for the trees. That's one extremely minor issue and a misrepresentation.

I explained the difference: "Pragmatism vs Nihilism, unintentionally holding contradictions vs seeking destruction, etc"

You replied: "I don't see the difference in either of them. Perhaps one is simply a better liar? But the evidence I've found shows that they are both as bad as each other."

:)