He also does not believe them. The whole point of Regressives was to spread SOCIALISM slowly one step at a time so the American people would not know it. This way Obama can say he is for social security, medicare, a progressive income tax, food stamps, Obamacare and then be insulted when someone says he is a SOCIALIST who hates freedom and the Declaration of Independence - he said he was for positive rights, not natural rights.

" Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, is spearheading marijuana legalization. While that might be an acceptable MINOR political goal, it really makes him epistemologically more like IVY STARNES than like Hank Rearden."

One good thing about the marijuana issue is *maybe* it could be a step toward thinking from "should the gov't allow activity X" to "should we grant the gov't permission to control activity X".

A vote for Ron Paul would have been a vote for AR values. A vote for Obama is a vote for everything AR stands against. I can find literally nothing that he does (as opposed to what he says, because on occasion he does sound reasonable) that I agree with.

Mike, often the President says things that are consistent with our values, but he never lives them. When he does say things consistent with our values, I know he is up to something nefarious.

Playing golf is one of the few things Obama does that I do not oppose.

We agree on more than you agree with most other people here in this forum, CircuitGuy. I also agree that "the ending of AS is a warning that liberty is not the default condition for humankind". In fact I took some heat recently from other Gulchers for taking that position. I also agree with your desire for candidates who
"reduce Exec branch powers, reduce gov't intrusiveness, reduce gov't size, and reduce either money in politics or the tendency for special interests to lobby for a slice of the gov't-spending pie." However, Obama does none of those things. He is more antithetical to Ayn Rand values than any president in US history by far over LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, and the Roosevelts. And just to be clear, I rank George W Bush near the bottom of the president list as well.

The face of "Change". All we can do now is "Hope" we can return to some sense of normalicy once the political pull party is no longer in office.

My thought is they didn't follow the politics of the CiC ergo they were "asked" to "retire" so the political machine can roar on through... with the ones who swore an oath to protect and defend the whim of the fuehrer...

When you get to that stage of your career in the military, its well known that you have to play politics to stand fast and keep your job. Been that way for years, no, decades. Whats sad is the politics are anything but American they're being asked to play.

"John Kerry was a soldier" in what fiction? The man was born a self promoter.

But I like the rest of your last paragraph.

Pelosi's main problem is her non-brain activity. She spouts obscenities at those she considers insignificant in her eyes which is all she has that is held in that head of hers but only by fragments. Reid only puckers if his head swells. Boehner cries.

Because this is a site for people who are interested in reality. CG has been pushing this theme that Obama is a good guy. but to suggest that Obama is for Liberty is clearly propaganda. When people start pushing propaganda for EVIL SOCIALIST policies, then it is time to go. That is not what this site is about. Try the Huffington Post, or New York Times or a hundred other places

That's a +1

Both of them got their jobs because of their color not their skills, and not their experience. And it has been a disaster.

Like all Socialists you jump on the race card. It's not that he's black its that he is a SOCIALIST. And EVIL.

These are what Lenin called articles for USEFUL IDIOTS.

Not one of his brighter statements. Obama is clearly pushing the same philosophy as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc and Rachel Carson. Together they killed over 200 million people and are PURE EVIL.

Now this I can agree with. The word reform always comes out of those who speak before thinking. Or is it thinking because they cannot speak?

Spot on, Susanne! I also feel that there is the possibility that the pink slips that went out recently on the battlefield were more about promoting those who have been joining up since Obama has been in office then a budgetary concern. Fundamentally changing the face of the military? They forced a lot of generals to retire last year.

We questioned the status quo. We sought personal solutions to personal problems. We stood in protest to the mass conformity of a generation that obeyed the orders of a military-industrial complex. It was our generation that received _Atlas Shrugged_ and formed campus "Ayn Rand Study Groups" and "Radicals for Capitalism." It was Ayn Rand's lawyer, Henry Mark Holzer who defended so-called "draft dodgers" because conscription is involuntary servitude. When the people refuse to fight in a war, we can only assume that the Republic is not really in danger.

The so-called "hippies" were a broad and nebulous trend over the course of a decade. Typifying it well would require a book; and many have been written. I understood a revolt against conformity, both corporative and govenrmentalist and the combination of the two, of course. "Hippies" included the high-tech craft workers who created the Apple computer in particular and the computer revolution in general. The Peoples' Computer Company of Berkeley sponsored in part by the Portola Institute and the Whole Earth Catalog put a computer terminal in a storefont to give cybernetic "power to the people."

Is that what you oppose?

John Kerry was a soldier in uniform who stood up and stood out in protest. Meanwhile Bill Clinton and George Bush took two easy ways out. Think of Kerry as you please, he never denied his actions - "I never inhaled..." He stood up for his beliefs. That, too, was part of the hippie thing of the 1960s and people died for it. Innocent kids at Kent State and protestors at Jackson State were gunned down by corporatists-militarist soldiers obedient to orders. Do you want the current generation of soldiers to obey orders when the time comes to confront you for your hippie individualist self-indugent refusal to serve the needs of society?

I find it fascinating that you would have trouble deciding between Ron Paul and Barack Obama. I see the two as polar opposites. After six years Obama has shown himself to be a far left extremist. Ron Paul was considered to be too right wing to get the Republican nomination. A matchup of those two would have offered the clearest choice in a generation.

Circuit; I'm sorry, but you're delusional if you think O'bama is a good leader and supporter of liberty compared to anybody. That's just too far out there.

I don't believe that he is a good person. I honestly feel that he believes weakening the US helps the world. I truly think if I met him that I would dislike the man.
Reducing our military abroad is something we agree on.
The US can be a force of good without using our military if we have a strong and stable economy. Keynesian policies that Obama blindly follows always fail. They only result in more power for the government.
His appointments have been horrible. From the Fast and Furious scandal to Benghazi to the IRS it is clear that this administration feels they are above the law. I hope that changes soon.

You can think what you please. If CircuitGuy is "too smart to believe" what he said, then why do you order him to leave" (Not that such an order is within your province; and it seems contradictory of the premise.) As I said, I did not vote for Barack Obama in 2012, but I voted for no one for president. Mitt Romney was just as bad, a right-wing reflection of the post-modernist scholar in the White House. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, is spearheading marijuana legalization. While that might be an acceptable MINOR political goal, it really makes him epistemologically more like IVY STARNES than like Hank Rearden. Our political and cultural goal is a nation of PRODUCERS not a nation of drugged-soaked hippies. Even if, objectively, marijuana should not be illegal, many other issues are more pressing. So, I did not vote Libertarian. I certainly did not vote Republican.

CircuitGuy's statement compared Barack Obama to the other mainstream choices. Even Leonard Peikoff has advocated voting Democratic. if you accept the pro-life premise of the person, then you can disagree with the vote, but not the motive.

I disagree Mike. James Buchanan was weak and helped bring about the Civil War. John Kennedy was weak and caused the Cuban Missile Crisis. Jimmy Carter's weakness resulted in hostages spending over 400 days in captivity. Bill Clinton was weak on foreign policy and didn't take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. Obama is not necessarily weak but he is incompetent.

CG, I can find agreement with you on some issues, but the one glaring namesake program of this President is not an example of leadership or liberty.