Fight the Ravenous Beast of Socialism

[ooghost1oo]

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.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Capitalism Forever
Removed poster's name as per his request

[adrock3215]

Do you actually think there is any difference between an Obama presidency and a McCain presidency? They will both govern in the same manner and with similiar pragmatic principles (that might be an oxymoron, but you know what I mean). As evidence of this fact, consider switching every reference to Obama in your post to McCain, and every reference to McCain to Obama, and notice that nothing of importance changes.

Edited October 22, 2008 by adrock3215

[kanjmai]

While there are likely things you do not like about McCain, you've got to appreciate that he believes in capitalism.

Giving capitalism weak lip service does not equal believing in capitalism. If McCain believed in capitalism- he would not have voted for the bailout bill, he would not have blamed the economic situation on "greedy Wall Street," if he was a capitalist he would be blaming the crisis on fiat currency and a managed economy. Did you watch any of the debates? Do you recall how he responded when he was called an advocate of deregulation? Well, he certainly didn't give the capitalist response by shouting, "Damn right I advocate deregulation!"

Besides, you seem to forget that Marxism is not the only enemy of Objectivism. Objectivism denies irrationality and any philosophies or ideologies that spring from it. That includes religion. And there is no doubt that, if elected, McCain will become chummy with the religious right.

Edited October 22, 2008 by kanjmai

[ooghost1oo]

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.

[kanjmai]

The "reality" is that there will be no fundamental difference between the two presidencies. I don't see how McCain's quasi-fascism is at all superior to Obama's quasi-socialism. Both are doing a terrible disservice to the free market. The only difference is that McCain is still trying to pay the market weak lip-service. The economy is going to continue to tank no matter who becomes president because both are going to continue to meddle in the market.

Edited October 22, 2008 by kanjmai

[Greebo]

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.

Are you sure you've read Rand? If Obama is the Phillip Reardon of this election, McCain is the Mr Thompson.

I'm not convinced you actually are anything other than a McCain campaigner in Objectivist clothing.

[softwareNerd]

Coming very soon is one of the most important elections our country has ever seen.

Every generation probably thinks they face "one of the most important elections". The U.S. is in a shift toward statism, and this is happening 8-years after Bush. It has been helped by Bush, because he is an altruist by conviction. McCain too will push the country further toward government control. So will Obama. None of these guys quite runs things, but they do help or hinder. Obama might want to turn more statist than the country wishes to go, but -- over a period of a decade -- the country will pretty much go where its intellectual thrust takes it, not where the president wants to go. If he goes too far beyond that intellectual center of gravity, he'll fail and there will be a new President -- someone like Huckabee. Finally, it is not the President who will determine our long term future; rather, it is the long-term intellectual trend that will determine our Presidents.

[gags]

Finally, it is not the President who will determine our long term future; rather, it is the long-term intellectual trend that will determine our Presidents.

This is so very true Snerd. The current election has really convinced me that we are faced with an impossible choice. I suppose if one candidate wins, they might take a little longer to suck out our lifeblood, nevertheless they'll still do it. The only way to cause any real change is to fight the battle philosophically, and that's clearly a long-term war.

[Juxtys]

Do what Lithuanians do: below the candidates, write down 'Chuck Norris' or whatever and put a cross near it like voting for him. These things happen all the time here...

[Zip]

As one of the forum's insightful members already said...

McCain = NATIONAL socialism

Obama = national SOCIALISM

6 of one half a dozen of the other.

[Ordr]

This is the image to go along with it:

As one of the forum's insightful members already said...

McCain = NATIONAL socialism

Obama = national SOCIALISM

6 of one half a dozen of the other.

[~Sophia~]

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 ...

Thank you. There is no question that they are both bad choices but this equivocation which some people are making is not factual.

Things are not going to be the same regardless of who get's into office. They both believe in government involvement in the economy but in different levels. And for some of you the state race will be tight so your vote may actually count. The choice here is between taking few steps backward (the country won't move forward toward where we want it to go in the next few years) or a whole block worth of steps backward.

Edited October 22, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

The U.S. is in a shift toward statism, and this is happening 8-years after Bush.

That is the trend long term but your vote determines to what degree things will move in that direction in the next 8 years. 8 years of my life is a long time to begin with but the changes as we all know will be much more long lasting. More if it today makes a difference.

Edited October 22, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[KendallJ]

Things are not going to be the same regardless of who get's into office. They both believe in government involvement in the economy but in different ways and different levels.

I know you've said several times that you see McCain as someone of "mixed principles." I'm curious if you could enumerate what principles McCain has both advocated and acted within?

Someone of variable actions can be someone of "mixed principles" or can be someone who is fundamentally "aprincipled", or a pragmatist. Both look moderate, but they are VERY different. A Pragmatist will sell out ANY principle at any time. It is his unpredictability and his lack of principles that makes him dangerous. This strikes me as John McCain's actual record. If there is any guiding principle that McCain has advocated it is altruism, and judging by what extreme damage an altruist like George Bush has done during his term, it is unclear that a pragmatic altruist is a lesser risk than and avowed socialist.

The second thing that you haven't addressed is that regardless of ideology, the Executive is bounded in specific functions. Obama's and McCain's ideology can only be expressed in particular ways. For instance it does not matter what Obama says he will do, it is only the legislative that can enact laws to support Obama's actions. Certainly that says that a uniformly socialist Legislature is a bigger threat than a pragmatic one, but these issues are ones of the individual congressional races. This evalutation does not translate the same way into the Executive.

The danger of pragmatism is that it appears moderate, but it is an effective enabler of evil as any uniformly principled stance because it destroys any principled defense.

[softwareNerd]

That is the trend long term but your vote determines to what degree things will move in that direction in the next 8 years. 8 years of my life is a long time to begin with but the changes as we all know will be much more long lasting. More if it today makes a difference.

I am not convinced the differences in the next 4 years (or 8) are predictably and significantly different for these two guys. Of course, that is my estimate and I could well be wrong, but here are the main points on which I think the two will probably not be significantly different:

Health care: Obama will probably manage to push through some type of "employer mandate" system; he will not switch existing employer-provided insurance to a government (single payer) scheme; he may even bring in laws that allow cross-state competition, though they will likely come at the cost of mandating coverage for certain illnesses, and other such regulation. McCain's is unlikely to bring in his $5,000 tax-credit, because he wants to balance the budget, and popular opinion does like his idea of taking it out of the employer-funded system. The only way he might swing that is if he also goes for some degree of employer mandate. Consider Bush, who is considered a rabid Capitalist when compared to McCain! What did he do under pressure for action on health-care: he took the one government program that most threatens to create long-term deficits, and he expanded it. I expect no less from McCain, because he does not appear to understand the principles underlying the programs that his advisers feed him. I think he will look to solve the problem with pragmatic compromise. If Romney could go along with employee mandates as a compromise, I see no way McCain will resist them. All he will do is help create a mandate system that has a "larger role for the market".

Climate change: Both the guys want carbon cap-and-trade.

Taxation: Obama will raise taxes and McCain will raise deficits by extending the Bush tax-cuts. Both these will draw money out of the hands of richer private investors, and direct it to spending. McCain's notion of cutting spending are bogus. One can go back to any President's term -- Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon -- and find them all promising to cut spending. None are serious. A serious candidate would have to say that he will cut the so-called "entitlements"; nobody who leaves that unaddressed can be expected to cut spending. And, when McCain says he will also not touch military spending, that leaves him a small sliver to play with.

Regulation: I think McCain would like to see tougher regulation on banks and financial companies, and I don't believe it will be any more lax than what Obama will bring in. In fact, my guess is that McCain will be more eager about this, while Obama will talk the talk, but be cynical about implementation.

Service: I think both Obama and McCain will try to give more importance to the AmeriCorp and other such organizations. Each might have his own approach, but they'll probably be the same on fundamentals.

Unions: With a Democratic legislature, we might see a "card-check" law being passed. One can look down a decade from then and see Wal*Mart being unionized. This is serious stuff. I think McCain will almost certainly veto such a law. [One point to McCain!]

SCOTUS: I am convinced that McCain will appoint a judge in the vein of Scalia while Obama will retain the current balance in the court. A GOP SCOTUS appointment has implications far beyond abortion -- with more possibilities to give precedence to states rights over individual rights, and with more deference to legislatures.

Religion: A SCOTUS appointment may be the biggest thing that McCain does for his Christian lobby. However, he will also probably continue at least some of the Christian-university recruiting that Bush began. So, we'll get more of those nut-jobs infiltrating into government. Obama, will bring in his own brand of nut-jobs at those (lower) levels. Unfortunately, in many areas, our best hope is to see some nut-jobs balancing the others. After 8 years of Bush, I think it's time for some antidote.

So, if I look at this personally, and consider the next 4 or 8 years, I do not think that I will be better off with one rather than the other. So, I'm tempted to look a little further out. When I do so, the first thing that I hit upon is the SCOTUS appointment. If I do vote for Obama, the SCOTUS will be my "fulcrum" reason, that puts me over the edge.

To further understand my perspective on this, consider this: suppose I were confronted with Huckabee instead of McCain, how would things be different? With a Huckabee, I would have seen the same SCOTUS appointment, and perhaps a little more of the Religious-university infiltration. However, it's my guess that Huckabee would stick up for free markets more than Bush did and far more than McCain will. So, a Huckabee choice would be deciding between short-term and long-term. In contrast, I don't see McCain delivering the short term.

[turboimpala]

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.

I agree with what you've said and I will be voting for McCain.

Many of the "Objectivists" on this forum are simply following the leader (Leonard Peikoff) with blind faith and rationalizing his idea that voting for a Communist is better than voting for someone who claims to be religious (even though Obama and Biden also claim to be religious).

Not to mention that Biden is Roman Catholic, so if Obama is elected, Protestants, Catholics and Communists can unite in their quest for global government forced altruism.

[K-Mac]

Many of the "Objectivists" on this forum are simply following the leader (Leonard Peikoff) with blind faith and...

Uh, Peikoff is abstaining and people on this forum have argued for McCain, Obama and abstaining. Where have you been?

Speak for yourself, not me.

Edited October 22, 2008 by K-Mac

[~Sophia~]

I know you've said several times that you see McCain as someone of "mixed principles." I'm curious if you could enumerate what principles McCain has both advocated and acted within?

Someone of variable actions can be someone of "mixed principles" or can be someone who is fundamentally "aprincipled", or a pragmatist.

For me to conclude that McCain rejects all fixed standards would be relaying on knowledge I don't have. It is a possiblity but that is all I have. What I do know for sure is that he is a mixed bag - he is disintegrated. Disintegration is less damaging than integrated anti-American evil.

McCain advocates people's ability to make choices for themselves (this is the American approach) - his plan for health care, education , and retirement choices reflect that. He talks about flexibility so that people can choose what they think is best. This is also consistent with his principle of Federalism (Federal government was intended to have limited scope) - allowing inviduals states to choose.

When appointing judges he said that he will look for persons who had a record that demonstrated fidelity to the Constitution. The fact that he considers this as very important would indicate that he does not think that just anything goes "what works right now" (that that is not his ethical approach).

Obama is about creating equality. You being able to put your child in a private school and not be foreced to retire goes against Obama's plan for your country.

He is not consistent but he at least considers that important and does not think that the country is going to be ruined if people are allowed to make decisions for themselves. I don't think that is something he will let go.

Certainly that says that a uniformly socialist Legislature is a bigger threat than a pragmatic one, but these issues are ones of the individual congressional races. This evalutation does not translate the same way into the Executive.

President can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require congressional approval. The president is also responsible for preparing the budget (and if the Congress is leftist...) and is in a position to influence public opinion and thereby to influence the course of legislation in Congress. President also appoints the top officials for all of the federal agencies and conducts most foreign policy.

A president's power and influence may be limited, but politically the president is certainly very important power in Washington.

Many of the "Objectivists" on this forum are simply following the leader (Leonard Peikoff) with blind faith

Just for the record - I don't think that is the case at all.

Edited October 22, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[turboimpala]

Uh, Peikoff is abstaining and people on this forum have argued for McCain, Obama and abstaining. Where have you been?

Speak for yourself, not me.

I'm not speaking for you, I said "many of the 'Objectivists' on this forum".

"Many" is not the same as "K-Mac".

And as the OP explained, abstaining is no different than voting for Obama.

[K-Mac]

Well, pardon me. Your generalization was so broad (much less rude and uncalled for) that I wasn't sure if you were speaking about me. I guess that's the risk one takes when throwing around baseless accusations to a general group.

And the race is neck and neck, so abstaining is not a vote for either candidate. In addition, if enough people abstain, it should send a message that many are unsatisfied with the choices we were given. This should prompt both parties to go after those votes. In doing so, perhaps they will hear what we want.

I changed my voter's registration earlier this year from Republican to Unaffiliated and I have been bombarded with phone calls daily regarding local, state and federal election issues/candidates. Obviously, the candidates are interested in those of us not already on their side.

If you're interested in the status quo, go right ahead and vote for one of the candidates that has been offered to you. (Although I still don't see why you feel the need to insult "Objectivists" on this website by claiming they do not think for themselves because they do not agree with you.) I prefer to send a message with my vote (or lack thereof) that both candidates suck (equally, but in different ways) and I won't go along with them.

[adrock3215]

Any Objectivist who can bring themselves to vote for McCain (in my opinion) has very little understanding of some of the key tenets of Objectivism. McCain represents a complete abrogation of principles as such and the open-armed acceptance of pragmatism. In today's world (in my opinion), the most "ravenous" political force is the rejection of principle and an acceptance of pragmatism.

Edited October 22, 2008 by adrock3215

[Chops]

In today's world (in my opinion), the most "ravenous" political force is the rejection of principle and an acceptance of pragmatism.

I completely agree.

[ooghost1oo]

Any Objectivist who can bring themselves to vote for McCain (in my opinion) has very little understanding of some of the key tenets of Objectivism. McCain represents a complete abrogation of principles as such and the open-armed acceptance of pragmatism. In today's world (in my opinion), the most "ravenous" political force is the rejection of principle and an acceptance of pragmatism.

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.

[softwareNerd]

... isn't perfect according to Randian ideals (and who is?), you'll likely end up abstaining from this vote.

... ... 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).

I think your post is non-responsive, because nobody said "imperfection" was a reason not to vote for McCain.

[gags]

Any Objectivist who can bring themselves to vote for McCain (in my opinion) has very little understanding of some of the key tenets of Objectivism.

Slow down for a second. According to the latest Evans and Novak Political Report: "In House and Senate races, things get worse every week for the GOP. Democrats will approach 60 seats in the U.S. Senate, and have guaranteed double-digit gains in the House."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29151

It's becoming clear that if Obama wins, the Democrats will control both houses of congress as well as the executive branch. The only question now is whether the Dems will end up with a fillibuster-proof majority in the US Senate. If that happens, I'm truly frightened for this country. It's a legitimate strategy to vote for McCain in an attempt to promote gridlock and to slow our trajectory toward complete destruction. With the way events are shaping up, a vote for McCain is not only acceptable, I think it's a very reasonable thing to do.