Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ooghost1oo

Regulars
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ooghost1oo

  1. Everything happens for a reason, because everything is part of God's plan, dont ya know...
  2. Being obligated to pay taxes is wrong. Of course, if there is a service provided by the government which you actually WANT, you should be able to selectively and voluntarily pay taxes to support that service. However, try not paying taxes, even though it's wrong and some people claim to have ways around it, and you'll be CRUSHED if they ever find you out. The fact of the matter is that, wrong or not, the government nearly holds the full monopoly on force, and happily puts a gun to your head, threatening you with force if you don't give in to their demands. The only way taxation will ever become as it should be is if the government is reined in to an absolute minimum.
  3. Force begets force. Verbal / Psychological (what the hell is THAT supposed to mean?) 'attacks' are not force. People don't have the skin to put up with 'psychological abuse' anymore. To anyone who gives it any weight, grow a damned backbone. And if the attacker ever physically (force) attacks you, DESTROY him. (Or call the police if you're a wimp.)
  4. Honestly, Russ, my perspective, which began as the first time I committed my thoughts to 'paper', has gradually evolved over the course of this 'argument' and during the time I've spent digging up references. My opinion stated before on 'natural selection' is merely my opinion, as much as I still believe it, but it's unimportant to my point because it has nothing to do with rights or freedom, the unintended consequences, which is what this is all about. I still believe what I said, for the reasons I've fleshed out through the course, but it doesn't matter. Plus, I don't really care individually about the theoretical adopted kids who could be adversely affected by being raised by gay parents. The point is: gay marriage being legalized will come with it the stipulations against discrimination based on sexual orientation. And anti-discrimination laws is what produces the unintended consequences, not the individual freedoms they try to produce. I'd rather the law stay out of it, too. In fact, the smaller the gov't involvement in EVERYTHING, the better. And I'd rather Christians didn't have their stupid, homophobic beliefs in their stupid bible. BUT ... I respect their right to those beliefs, and I argue for their right to uphold those beliefs in their institutions. You people who label me as a right-wing fanatic, or 'rationalizing a judeo-christian political view behind a veil of practicality' sound like damned liberal parrots. Like you have NO idea the point I'm trying to make, and you don't understand Rand's outlook on Radical Capitalism, her idea of minimal government, and her respect for the rights of the individual. But as things are, making anti-discriminary laws to go around previous laws, will only lead to people using the law to strong-arm their beliefs on people who believe otherwise. And unless specific measures are put in place to protect churches from discrimination suits, this legislation will quash freedom. It would be different if states allowed gays to get married at the courthouse only, bypassing the problem, but then there will still be gays who want to get married at their church (as rare as they may be), and if that church isn't one of those 'moderate' churches, one party or another is going to suffer. Like the photographer who had to pay damages of $6000-something just because she refused to associate her business with something she believed was wrong. I know Objectivists have to be full of a lot of variety of independent minds, but it's amazing to me that you so-called Objectivists that are arguing against my 'smokescreen right-wing hate speech' don't grasp this fundamental issue. Amazing. How brainwashed you are. Homophobe ... you fool. I don't give a damn about gays. I just care about anti-discrimination laws, which only end up being abused to run over the rights of another. Pseudo-reason. I really wonder how much point there is debating on forums where there will always be some of you who just don't get it, and just sit around jacking each other off and making yourself feel smart.
  5. Bam. Here is a court example of a gay couple suing a wedding photographer for refusing to photograph their gay marriage: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesp...ographycase.pdf If any of you don't see how this same bullshit can be applied to a righteous couple suing a church for discrimination, once such marriage is declared legal, you're refusing to accept reality. This is a hideous abuse of law and a front on individual rights, for individuals and businesses. While Jack Ethan may say that a gay couple would never want to be married in a church, THAT is a generalization, and you can never say what other people may or may not do. But making laws based on discrimination like this opens the doors for abusing other people rights to run their businesses THEIR way (like churches, like that poor photographer), because there will ALWAYS be people who will take advantage of the system and make mockery of justice. Unintended consequences. You may say that the photographer didn't have a right to refuse service to the gay couple because she was against gay marriage. Wrong. No one has the right to dictate to a business how that business is run, who they can or cannot serve, and so on. If you don't understand that, then you are no Objectivist.
  6. I don't follow where you ever went there... Never said it was. Don't care. I'm treating the church, in this case, as a private business. This is so pointless... Why indeed? That's the whole point. And what happens when the government gets involved? One party or another loses their freedoms. Their rights. They're strong-armed into doing something they don't want to do. But, you'll see. What was originally intended to provide 'equal rights' to gay folks will have the unintended consequences of lawsuits that will put judges in the position to contradict the law OR step on the rights of the church. It's not much of a jump--it's foresight. You'll see.
  7. You definitely have the right to provide your OWN health care, if you can. A proper right is something that doesn't require the providing of someone else. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (if you're an American). All three of those things are wholly dependent on YOU. It doesn't affect anyone else. But you can't claim the right to something that would need someone else to provide whatever you need--that's impinging on another's freedom. You don't have the right to hamburgers. No one needs to give you hamburgers. There is no free lunch. You don't have the right to an education--that's your own responsibility. You don't have the right to health care. No one is under compulsion to treat you. There are no entitlements--be responsible for your own life.
  8. Because the church, like any business, has the right to run their business their OWN way. Not to be told how they'll do it. Individuals do NOT have the right to another person's goods and services. The church is in the right in this case. It's all about VOLUNTARY exchange--by mutual consent--not compulsory. Just like Rearden refusing to sell Readen metal to the companies he didn't want to do business with. It's his right. See? I looked and looked, but couldn't find (within a reasonable amount of time) any references to court cases (yet) about a gay couple suing a church for discrimination in a gay marriage state. I'm sure it's out there, but even if it's not--just wait. Think about the days of Affirmative Action with black people suing companies for not hiring them (for one reason or another) by playing the race card. Wait and see what happens when Bob and Gary, or any other gay couple with an equality bug up their asses try to sue a church for discriminating against them. Wait and see what happens in this ridiculous time of frivolous lawsuits. Read between the lines. Do individuals have a RIGHT to the services of another? If you think they do, you certainly don't belong HERE...
  9. BS. It's not 'right wing propaganda'. It's FACT. Something called 'Unintended Consequences'. It's what happens when legislatures are so quick to make laws based on fads of political correctness and the winds of the daily public controversies that they don't stop and think of the further effects of those laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution. September 10, 2008: HB436, a bill that seeks to "eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage", is submitted to the New Hampshire House of Representatives. On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil-unions statute (2005), as unconstitutionally discriminating against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages. Look at this: Gay Bob and Gay Gary are two Christians (even though they're gay) that go to the "First Methodist Church" of Podunk, Vermont. They want to get married at their church, but their pastor refuses. Instead of just getting married at the courthouse, they make a big thing out of it, because they don't see anything wrong with it, and they want to get married in their church just like everybody else. So they sue the "First Methodist Church" for discrimination, because their state recognizes gay marriage as legal. And they win, because the law is on their side. So now, the church is ordered to wed Bob and Gary, but the pastor and his organization doesn't want to because they firmly believe it wrong, evil, immoral, against the bible, etc ad nauseam. So now the church is being forced to do something they firmly believe against doing, under threat of force by the state. You don't see a problem with that? Here's how it should go, if it ever does: June 3, 2009: The New Hampshire General Court passes new HB73, which includes protections for religious institutions, as required by Gov. John Lynch to secure his signature on HB436, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Gov. Lynch signs both bills the same day. It's about freedom, the rights of the individual, and the rights of the church, as a business. Not gay marriage.
  10. Oh, what a tiff I've caused. I don't have 'data' about a non-gay child being raised gay. But it seems like common sense to me--my lack of hard evidence won't change my mind, and it shouldn't change yours. It's evident reality. I will point out children raised in abusive households that have developed PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), with which I have experience. You can google it yourself for support if you're interested in the truth. Kids raised in abusive relationships have a real tough time with normal relationships as adults, because they've been conditioned to accept a crazy, abusive, stressful, dramafied environment as 'the norm'. If they ever get into a normal relationship that is peaceful, they're apt to sabotage it themselves by creating drama out of thin air, abusing their spouse, etc., because a 'normal' environment is uncomfortable and scary for them. They seek to create the abnormal environment they understand as normal to cope. The same premise applies. I wouldn't deny gays goods and services--I don't care. But if I were a Christian minister, and they wanted me to marry them, I would, because being gay is something Christians consider wrong and it would be wrong to marry them, according to their beliefs. Say what you will about their beliefs (I'm not fond of Christians), BUT ... it is THEIR beliefs, and they have a RIGHT to it. We here are radical Capitalists, who uphold the rights of the individual on high. I can't believe you guys don't see this. Get out of your politically correct boxes.
  11. BTW, get a clue. No church is forced by law to marry anyone. Uh ... get a clue. What do you think the legislation is trying to do? Regulations to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services, premises, and education. What do you think would happen if a gay couple who went to some Christian church wanted their church to marry them and the church said 'no'? They could file for discrimination, they'd win, and the church would be ordered to marry them or lose their tax-exempt status. More regulation. More control. More loss of rights and freedom. It's not about gays getting married--it's about forcing a business (the church) to do something that they don't want to do, even though it's their right not to, and being shut down if they don't comply. Unintended consequences. Think before you retort. Homosexuality can be passed from parent to adopted child? An adopted child would definitely be predisposed to at least 'trying out' being gay, because that's what he/she considers normal from the way they were raised. I don't particularly care about the individual adopted kids, but it would be sad that they'd be forced into that situation by circumstance. Remember--I don't have a problem with gays being gay and sticking to themselves. But I do acknowledge that being gay is either an abnormality (which normal kids shouldn't be subjected to learning is 'normal') or the result of failure at social mating behavior.
  12. Cigarettes will kill you. Too much of any one chemical will give you cancer of some sort of another. But, what do I care? Smoke 'em if you got 'em. It's your freedom. Nothing wrong with tattoos, if you accept the responsibility of their permanence. I have four tattoos. In retrospect, I still love two of them. I could do without the other two, but I don't regret it, because I accepted their reality when I got them. Here's the thing with homos. There's nothing wrong or scary about it--it's their freedom. Conservative fears are based on Christian beliefs and their Christian ... prudishness. Of course, homosexuality is also real natural selection in action. The majority of gays are either defective human beings, in their hormone levels or production (for some reason or another), OR are people who have given up on pursuing the opposite sex. If gays are allowed to be married, however, it bypasses that 'natural selection' by allowing them to artificially reproduce through adoption. That may or may not be important, according to Objectivist values. We are intended to make nature adapt to US, after all. Gay marriage does present an issue with freedom and individual rights, however. People don't have 'a right to get married'. That's a religious institution. And by forcing churches to marry gays through law, that impinges upon the right of the church, who may not want to do it because it's against their tenets. And a church refusing law-imposed gay marriage, by standing up for their beliefs, would be stripped of their tax-exempt status, and 'go out of business'. Now, I don't give a damn about a church's 'tenets'. I despise organized religion. But I do care about their RIGHT to have their religion. And gay marriage is wrong because it steps on the rights of the church where a theoretical gay couple may demand to be married. If gays get married in a courthouse, outside of religious influence that would otherwise deny them, then the only issue is that of bypassing natural selection. Which I think is wrong, but that's a personal opinion. Which doesn't threaten liberty in any way, so I wouldn't stand in their way.
  13. The whole 'chicken or the egg' thing, I think. Altruism was the obvious response--I was hoping you'd suggest something more and less cliche on an objectivist forum. Of course Altruism breeds fear of a world that is incompatible with altruistic views. But does altruism precede the fear? I bet fear comes before altruism, else they wouldn't have gone off looking for the altruism (an excuse to be weak) in the first place.
  14. Um ... Power? Insecurity? Fear? Surely you don't mean simply 'altruism'? I think it's fear. The lack of confidence to stand by their own convictions and let others live and let live. The conservatives fear death and the unknown and require their faith in god (along with their legally-bound adherence to his 'principals') and can't stand by while people live outside of their code. The liberals/socialists are cowards and fear standing on their own without the support of their peers (legally mandated). They all fear standing alone, confident, among other free men who stand alone. Even the evil tyrants on top do what they do out of fear, so afraid of everyone else or a reality that isn't the way they want it that they have to shape their sphere of control in a way that makes them more 'secure'.
  15. You'll see my hatred for liberalism in a lot of the articles and various other things I post, but 'liberalism' (in the way I define it: socialist leftism), is really the symptom of a bigger problem, and a bigger enemy. Supporters of Socialism are like naive activists--it's all about ideals to make humanity live in harmony with no one holding the low end of the stick. All those hippies, worshipers of of the murderer Che Guevara, brainwashed Obama Kool-aid drinkers, etc.; through their philosophically immature views on how the world should be, they open the gates for mankind's most terrible enemy: Tyranny. The antithesis to individual freedom (and radical capitalists, objectivists, and 'godless conservatives' like me) is the tyrant. The tyrant comes in many forms and different flavors, be it collective or fascist, but it all boils down to the same thing. Power, through the threat of force, to violate the freedoms of the individual. When I rail and fight against liberals, it's more to wake up the brainwashed sheep who just parrot the feel-good stuff they hear from the tyrants in power, than it is a battle against the liberals themselves. I've heard it said that this out-of-control government, to reach its desired level of power and conquer the people of this nation, is focused on dividing us and encouraging us to fight among ourselves. This is true. Conservatives are guilty of not seeing the ploy of the larger enemy, and focusing their resistance and resources on liberals. Liberals are guilty of being thoughtless tools with undeveloped, immature perspectives, who fight the conservatives with their silly bullshit and blindingly follow their powerful masters who control them with guilt to accomplish their sinister aims. Liberals, themselves, are not really the enemy. They're a symptom of a bigger disease. The followers, anyway. The masses (no brain, but a million mouths) are mostly harmless, except for when their masters rile them up to do (vote on) their bidding. As individuals, liberals will either 'grow out' of their views the more they face reality, or become total douche-bags who blather about liberal bullshit and aren't really taken seriously by normal people. The liberals in power, however--they are the real enemy. And not only the liberals. Many republicans and conservatives would cheerfully see this country turned into a police state. Bush proved to be an enemy to freedom with his 'war on terror' that allowed American citizens to be spied on without consent. Obama is an enemy to freedom because he's an idealistic collectivist, and he's doing as much as he can to make America a socialist nation. It's been said that, under a Republican administration, America is creeping toward tyranny, and under a Democratic administration, it's GALLOPING. The true enemy is a rampant government, left unchecked with too much power over its people. I've seen it said that conservative talk-show hosts (Hannity, Rush--I don't know about Glenn Beck) are boot-licking authority lovers. I love a lot of what they say to America, but I think that may be true. They unfailingly support the Republicans, even when Republicans try and steer the country to their own brand of tyranny. And liberals are just retarded. I can't ever take them seriously. Anyone with an ounce of brains who studies the world to better understand reality, knows that collectivism (ANY form of socialism, no matter how slight) is counter-productive to the progress and betterment of mankind (on a large or individual level). Collectivism has always failed where-ever it has been tried, because it is fundamentally flawed and can never work. Where-ever (or if-ever) it succeeds, the result will not be idealized socialism, but instead, a society controlled by the corrupted elite in power. Which is not their ideal. The problem is the corrupted elite in power. We should have never let the government get big enough to the point where it no longer feared the people. We'd better not let it get any worse. Conservatives out there: you've got to realize where the real threat is. Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Reid, all the other liberals in power ... Yes, you know how they're a problem and you're fighting it in whatever way you can (if you are), and that's a good thing. Did you know that Obama, since he realized he couldn't just 'take' away peoples' guns without sparking a serious conflict, is working on a way to let the United Nations have some legal power here in the US that would circumnavigate the Constitution and allow them to extradite people that refuse to obey their gun laws? But, before you're so quick to follow and defend the Republicans, ask yourself if this law or that law or whatever they're doing is for or against your individual freedom? Consider no fear. No compromise. Does it violate your individual constitutional freedom or not? If so, then they are your enemy and not to be trusted. And liberals: just grow the fuck up. Read some Ayn Rand (one of the best-ever insights into Capitalism and philosophy). Study some history. Expand your mind, and pull your head out of the trees and the rosy emissions of your hybrid cars. Can you really have any respect for yourself if you rely on the efforts of anyone other than yourself? Respect reality, and get to know the nature of mankind--not what 'would be nice'. And grow a damned back-bone. Stop being so offended, and stop trying to be politically correct. The only and best political system that will ever allow mankind thrive and be happy is Capitalism. Unrestricted Capitalism. That's why America came out on top and has been the best ever since this nation was born. Because enjoying our individual freedoms and being free to follow our own paths is the only way to truly live, and the only way we can reach our real individual potential. Reality and logic will always point you in this way. The right way is always clear when you are honest with yourself. All you have to do is look, and allow yourself to see. We are a country that stands alone. But, someone who enjoys real freedom will always have the wolves at their door trying to take it away. And the wolves are all around us. The federal government is at the point now where it pretty-much does what it wants--and doesn't even care to hide it anymore. The pathetic thing is, though, what do we do about it? Watch? Talk? Pretend it isn't happening and play with our cell phones? I fight liberalism because I believe collectivism is evil and sucks the life out of man. But the tyrant is the greater enemy, and the corrupt will sit on the top of the socialist pile of bodies and damn us all.
  16. Bam. That's the whole point. I sincerely hope many of you consider this. It could really make a difference.
  17. If you focus so much on principle, and never giving in no matter what to someone who isn't perfect according to Randian ideals (and who is?), you'll likely end up abstaining from this vote. Or, god forbid (expression of speech), voting for Obama (directly or through weakening his opposition by voting for a 3rd party). Then you throw your ideals away. Because you had a chance to make a difference, and you were either too pouty to do so, or you have a serious conflict in priorities. I am just as against pragmatism and Christianity (any organized religion) as you all are, but these things are not a direct threat to me, my way of life, and my freedom to think and act as I choose (so long as I don't initiate force--yes I am an objectivist). This website exists because of freedom of speech, which socialism would seek to wipe out. In its extreme cases, the rebels will simply disappear, and their voices, media, and forums will likewise. And make no mistake (read my article again if you must): this election is not like those before. Obama is a total, unapologetic socialist. And the rest of the government is controlled by liberals. If he is elected, there are no conservatives or republicans to stand in the way of the liberals, and they will change the whole system. Then, can we, ourselves, change things? Not if they stamp out our voices, our protests, and our ability to control the government as the people. The only way to change it back will be with blood. Or we perish. We go underground. We are persecuted and crushed, bled dry for our needy brothers. The news becomes socialist propaganda, books and schools become indoctrinations. (As if this hasn't happened already...) Obama = Rearden? Ha! If anyone is convinced that Obama is the good guy, and not the terrible looter he is, then I'm not bothering with you--you're probably too far gone. But those of you who can get off the 'the whole system sucks' high-horse for a little while to think about it all strategically, with facts and past actions of the two, you can choose your battle more wisely. And you can hold off America's slip towards statism for a while longer. Maybe long enough to wise up more of the populace. Or you can try to hold on to your individualism while being crushed under a boot. Like I said. America is heading towards statism under both parties. Creeping with republicans and galloping with Democrats. The whole point of my essay, though, is to sway you away from not voting or throwing away your vote on a hopeless candidate. Instead, hold off socialism by voting for McCain (who's not perfect, and is not an objectivist by any means (probably doesn't even know who we are), but will preserve your freedoms). Because it is absolutely necessary to fight and destroy socialism, altruism, mysticism, and collectivism in any form. So fight it, because it's here. It is looming over the horizon, and it will try to crush us if it succeeds, and you will regret valuing your argument points over your freedom.
  18. Okay, guys, but the issue is not turning a blind eye to McCain's Christian fanaticism, but defeating Obama's charge of blatant socialism. If you vote (I hope you are) for the Libertarian or Objectivist candidates, you're throwing your vote away. Which will help Obama win. And furthering objectivism under a leader that supports Christianity is NOT the same as trying to further objectivism under socialist rule. Just think about it. Be realistic. (Also an objectivist trait.) As for interchanging Obama's and McCain's names in my context, I don't know what blinders you've been wearing, dude. Look at the facts and stop focusing on how much they both suck because they're not objectivist. Certain faults and traits are more compatible with Randian views than others. And not everything should be a challenge to the virtue of integrity. If anyone is touched by this, please say so. I'd love to know if I made a difference.
  19. Fight the Ravenous Beast of Socialism A message to Libertarians, Independent Conservatives, and Objectivists 21 October, 2008, two weeks before election day. Coming very soon is one of the most important elections our country has ever seen. Important, not for what good could come out of the election if it goes one way or another, but because of the terrible things that could result if Obama is chosen. Unless we, we freedom fighters and independent minds, rally together--our beloved America will be cast into the pit of Socialism. We will lose our freedoms and wallow in the despised collectivism that has consumed and destroyed all countries it has touched. For most of you, I probably don't have to discuss the extreme-liberal and say-anything Obama, or his thinly veiled Marxist intent. I'm sure most of you like to stand on your own feet, keep what's yours, and want the government to be as minimal as possible. Even though Obama has bought off most of the media and celebrities out there, he's made enough blunders on his campaign trail to reveal to anyone moderately intelligent that he's dishonest, saying whatever he has to to get the votes, has a past of corruption and anti-capitalist ideals, and wants the government to have unlimited control. This weekend, he actually let slip that he wants to "redistribute the wealth". And, assuming the win, his vice-president is already trying to butter us up for Obama making some "unpopular decisions" in the first six months of his term. His base is the extreme left fanatics (the enemy to free America and capitalism), and the ignorant masses that are swayed by his smooth talking, the chic of political correctness, and never bother checking the facts or thinking for themselves. If there are any independents out there who still think Obama is a good choice, then I won't bother trying to change your mind any more than this: If you're looking for "change", just think about what exactly that "change" is. What about all of his promises for the middle class? Who is going to pay for these tax cuts and checks in the mail for the poor? Businesses. The rich. The movers and shakers and producers of the country. Do you, yourself, really want to take someone else's money? He says this system (i.e. capitalism) doesn't work, and it's time for change. A change to socialism. Marxism. Statism. The flawed system of the second-handers, the looters; a system that crushes achievers and snuffs the spirit of man. The system with no brain, but hundreds upon thousands upon millions of mouths that cry for more. If anyone has second thoughts about Obama, there are scores of sources out there that will point out his hypocrisy, his greed for power, his desire to strip the common man of his defenses (his voice, his guns, his rights), his drive (his worth, his achievements, his American dream), and his freedom (lack of rights; government dependence). The media is no longer unbiased, so don't believe everything you hear. You CAN find truthful information on the websites and shows of conservative talk-radio hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. [Note for you objectivists: these folks ARE your allies and see eye to eye with Randians on pretty much all issues except that of religion. They believe in independence and freedom.] So, I know most of you weren't voting for Obama anyway, and could see through his lies and 'messiah' complex to the truth beneath. However, if you vote for Bob Barr, or Alan Keyes, or Tom Stevens, or any of the other ideal independents, you are throwing your vote away and bringing Obama and Socialism closer to victory. Many of you are tired of the two party system and the corruption, B.S., and government interest of both of them, Democrats and Republicans alike. I've seen said somewhere that "A Republican administration is slowly creeping toward fascism, while a Democratic administration is galloping." They're both bad, in different ways (the Democrats much worse, of course). It would sure be great to have an actual Libertarian president. Or an objectivist. But it's not going to happen. Ideals do not equate to reality. Not yet, anyway. The way things ought to be are rarely the way things are, and will never become the way things are--simply because they ought to. The time is not right. Not yet. Just like with Ron Paul in the primaries. It would have been great, and he had a hell of a grass-roots movement, but he didn't stand a chance. Despite you intellectuals and you freedom lovers understanding the way things need to be for America to be great again, we are still reliant upon the votes of the masses, the mindless, the mouths and hands of the lower class that have become reliant upon the system. There will be a time when the people feel the oppression more acutely and freedom is something you can almost hold in your hand, but the time has not yet come. The time will come when our liberty is more important than our sense of security, and at that time, America as a whole will be ready for a change. (A good change.) While there are likely things you do not like about McCain, you've got to appreciate that he believes in capitalism. He'll support a capitalist market, free speech, and he'll fight for us to keep our guns. If you vote for your own independent party, and support your ideals, you'll be giving up the war against collectivism. It might make you feel good to vote Libertarian, but that will be one less vote for McCain that could stop Obama. Maybe you don't think America should be policing the Middle East, or you're just anti-war, but if McCain's in office, you'll at least be able to speak up about it. Look at how the Obama campaign tried to shut down poor "Joe the Plumber" just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and asking Obama a question that helped reveal his evil motives. Under a McCain administration, you can voice your objections. You can work through your community, the internet, etc., to promote your cause and try to make a difference. Under an Obama administration, you'll lose your voice. And Obama isn't all that special. Not as far as liberal, Democratic candidates go. They all push for more government, more control, more spending, and less freedom (little by little). They're all socialists to some degree or another. However, Obama is a champion of actual Marxism. Openly, even. He is one of the most extreme, far-left, liberal Democratic candidates ever. And, with a Democratic-controlled congress and senate, as well as a supreme court that's split conservative/liberal down the middle, he is here at a very dangerous time. Dangerous for freedom. We almost lost our second amendment not too long ago, protected by only a single vote. And whoever becomes president will be nominating two new justices. With Obama as president, as well as a few more Democratics in the houses, the liberals will control everything. We won't be able to stop them from running amuck with crazy, oppressive laws, stealing what we earn, taking away our protection, our freedoms, and throwing us into Socialist USA. You can vote for your cause, be it Libertarian, Objectivist, or whatever else, by voting AGAINST Obama. By voting against the spread of the socialist disease. And the only way to vote against Obama is to vote for McCain. Then continue trying to make a difference on the ground-level until the time is right (not now) for a Libertarian president. Otherwise, if you spread out your good, pro-capitalist, pro-freedom intentions among our various parties that support them, you'll weaken the only candidate that realistically has a chance to stand for freedom and beat the Marxist bastard. Remember 1992, when the votes were split up between Bush, Perot, and Clinton. Bush would have won if the Libertarians voted Republican. And we wouldn't be in the bailout and sub-prime mortgage mess we are in today (which was Clinton's doing). So please consider. If you vote for McCain because you like McCain and what he stands for--fine. But if you were intending to vote for a Libertarian, Independent Conservative, Objectivist, or other independent candidate, please stand up for your ideals and vote for McCain instead. Not because you like him, but because you're voting AGAINST Obama and the evil he brings with him. The race will come down to Obama and McCain, period. No others will come close. So voting for anyone else will weaken your intentions and weaken our defense against Marxism. This is a fork in the road for America, that shining city on a hill. We the people. We who love our freedom, our liberty, our land of opportunity where we can become as great as we set out to be. Where we can become the best of our ability and the pinnacle of our hopes and dreams. The stage is set for us to follow the world into the pit of socialism, the horrors of collectivism and bleak wastelands of bleeding our lives for beggars and thugs; or, to be free to advance America and Capitalism (at least for another 4-8 years), to try to reduce government and regulations, to push our economy to thrive, and hopefully see McCain help out along the way. We can stave off this collectivist decay of our culture and society, and fight to help America stay the last bastion of freedom on the planet. We can do this by voting for McCain. If Obama wins this election, there will be nothing to stop the government from becoming a socialist state, and if that happens, we will NOT be able to retrieve our beautiful America without the use of force. So vote against Obama. Fight the ravenous beast of Socialism. By voting for McCain.
×
×
  • Create New...