How satisfied are you with the results of the election?

[tschu]

Since it is in Canada and they are up there and we are down here, the oil just runs down hill.

LOL I lost it reading this.

 

 

As far as the election, the GOP has shown they can't even get their sh#t together as a political party, let alone lead the nation at this point in time. They are entrenched in a position that is so hilariously socially conservative, yet fiscally liberal, that it makes almost zero sense for an informed voter to choose them over a democratic candidate. If you want a true conservative position, yet being non-retarded on social issues, then join me and vote Libertarian next time.

 

So yes, we'll be just fine under Obama again.

[Vizsla1]

Carl-

Commonly shared ethical and moral principles form the basis for our Constitution and laws. Christians who correctly understand the bible's teachings about private property unite with fans (Atlas Shrugged) in believing that every individual’s property rights should be inviolable. Ayn's statements in Atlas Shrugged about the legitimate sphere and scope of government power are virtually indistinguishable from certain principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Many of our founders (jefferson, adams, paine, franklin) like Ayn Rand were not Christians, they were Deists- as described in Paine's Age of Reason.

 

Christianity was one of the first religions to focus on the individual.

 

The EC- sorry i may have mis wrote earlier. I meant to say- you and I are not allowed to vote on the house floor as an American citizen. As you know, We vote to send a Congressional (representative) member to Congress to vote on our behalf. I just think the EC could be improved to follow Nebraska and Maine's lead and divide up their electoral votes by which president wins a district. THIS WOULD HELP A THIRD PARTY candidate make a larger imprint on the national electorate. IMHO

[carlfense]

Commonly shared ethical and moral principles form the basis for our Constitution and laws.

OK . . . what does that have to do with the bible and Atlas Shrugged?

 

Christians who correctly understand the bible's teachings about private property unite with fans (Atlas Shrugged) in believing that every individual’s property rights should be inviolable.

Yes . . . an expressly godless tome extolling the virtues of greed has very much in common with a religious text that repeatedly condemns greed.

 

That Jesus guy seemed really locked in on accumulating and protecting earthly possessions.

 

Ayn's statements in Atlas Shrugged about the legitimate sphere and scope of government power are virtually indistinguishable from certain principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Which quotes from each are you comparing?

 

Many of our founders (jefferson, adams, paine, franklin) like Ayn Rand were not Christians, they were Deists- as described in Paine's Age of Reason.

Ayn Rand was an atheist. Some founders were Deists. What's your point?

 

The EC- sorry i may have mis wrote earlier. I meant to say- you and I are not allowed to vote on the house floor as an American citizen. As you know, We vote to send a Congressional (representative) member to Congress to vote on our behalf. I just think the EC could be improved to follow Nebraska and Maine's lead and divide up their electoral votes by which president wins a district. THIS WOULD HELP A THIRD PARTY candidate make a larger imprint on the national electorate. IMHO

What are you talking about? Not allowed on the house floor?

 

You trollin'.

[zoogs]

Why the focus on the President?

 

The Supreme Court is not selected via any sort of popular election. But it's meant to be that way -- is there a good reason for this?

[JJ Husker]

How satisfied am I with the election results? Not very. But I am strangely at peace with it. I thought I would be much morqe disillusioned and upset with an Obama repeat but I am not. Honestly I am just glad it is over. And amazingly I was actually somewhat impressed with Obama's victory speech. Usually when I hear his voice I get the sensation of fingernails on a chalkboard but not last night. I think there may be something I could sense in his voice before that is no longer there now that he does not have to be concerned with getting elected. In fact I am now even becoming hopeful that he may be willing to compromise a little and not cater to the far left element as much. Might be crazy but I am strangely at ease at least for the moment. Still would have preferred to give the businessman a shot at some of our dire economic and fiscal problems but will give BO a chance and think I will be a little harsher with any obstructionist congress people if they continue to act in a manner that harms us.

[Vizsla1]

Carl-

Many local churches (mine included) were (still are) using their treasuries to support many things for which they had no biblical directives or authority, such as colleges, homes for unwed mothers, homes for the aged, etc. (this is like people who say the right to chose an abortion is in the Constitution) This is similar to the story that Ayn Rand paints with Lesley Munch etc... The scriptures do distinguish between individual and collective action. Paul wrote:

 

"16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" (I Tim. 5: 16).

 

The "any man or woman" constitutes individual action as opposed to "...Let not the church be charged...." or in the case of Atlas Shrugged the government directives that are instituted in the name of fairness. The collective action seen in the case of "the church" “Atlas government” involved the treasury of the local church. When the individual members contributed of their means into the treasury and then the treasury is used, the use of the treasury clearly constitutes collective action (Atlas action taken on producers). Since this seems to be a highly complicated matter and hard to understand today, allow me to present a simple illustration:

 

"John Doe out of his money gave one hundred dollars to the Save a Child Foundation versus Save a Child gave one hundred dollars to a family." Notice how that in this illustration (like Bush’s Faith Based initiative vs government welfare), there is both individual and collective action. John gave, is clearly individual action, but when Save a Child gave, this is indisputable collective action. John is an individual and Save a Child is an entity, having its own President, board of directors, treasury, and organizational structure. IRS certainly recognizes the differences between individual and collective action and so does the Bible, as seen (I Tim. 5: 16). The Bible so recognizes the difference between individual and collective or aggregate action that in the case of I Timothy 5: 16, one is required (individual) and the other is disallowed (collective). That is how the two are similar.

I am not a troller, but I am not up on what that means or how to derp (another new word)very well. I had a weekly segment on a show out of Orlando, FL on WORL called “Arise America”. The show lasted a couple years and I would call out on a cell phone for a 20-30 minute segment and argue with some on the mid tier democrats you see on tv. Sometimes I looked foolish, like today...and most of the time I rocked. But i wasn't afraid to bring facts and logic vs feelings to a discussion. Most of what I have read today is about feelings vs facts. Bush did this Bush did that. If Bo was still complaining about BC and how he left the program is trouble etc..how would you respond to him?

 

When President Obama goes to NY and says he is going to reduce the red tape to get NY some help, why not reduce the red tape for all of our businesses? Our economy's ills are not that complicated (Just like Atlas Shrugged). Minimize regulations, Do not let the government pick winners and losers in the economy and most of the time capitalism will win out. The auto bail out pretty much shored up union pension funds, and GM etc.. still owe us taxpayers in excess of $26 billion. Look at the money spent on the Chevy Volt- If you think that is progress for all, then I have completely lost you.

[strigori]

You can not seriously think that our Constitution has any basis in Biblical law. Even alluding to that shows a profound lack of understanding of either source material.

[krill]

When President Obama goes to NY and says he is going to reduce the red tape to get NY some help, why not reduce the red tape for all of our businesses? Our economy's ills are not that complicated (Just like Atlas Shrugged). Minimize regulations, Do not let the government pick winners and losers in the economy and most of the time capitalism will win out. The auto bail out pretty much shored up union pension funds, and GM etc.. still owe us taxpayers in excess of $26 billion. Look at the money spent on the Chevy Volt- If you think that is progress for all, then I have completely lost you.

 

I assume you'll be first in line for an oil pipeline through your backyard, having a child born with asthma or some other health problem, watching your 401k lit on fire, etc. as we push towards minimal regulation.

[Nebula]

I think it's great! Nothing like an entrenched two party system to really foster true idealogical discussion! Everything is fine! Shut up! Here's American Gladiators!

 

We're sincerley screwed if/until some true leaders with courage, intellect, and humilty somehow sprout from underneath the cesspool of our insatiable government. They haven't even had a functional budget for years. They think we're idiots, and we'll keep ignoring the fact that regardless of who is in office, government reach seems to continue to grow unchecked and they continue to take more and more from us while simultaneously being more and more wasteful. So far, they've been proven right.

 

I mean, there used to be legitimate debates. People used to write speeches that had some actual deep thought to them. Like, say, the Gettysburg Address. Now we get the same kind of marketing you get for f'ing laptop computers. There is some new laptop. Apparently it is called "Surface." Obama, for example, gave us the catchy PR phrase of "Forward" this year. Pardon me, but what the f#*k does that mean, exactly? Forward towards what? 12 years running of Halliburton, Guantanamo, unchecked lobbyist influence, ever slackening regulations on just how much money can be dumped into the trashcan fire that comes with every election, that pesky, ever widening fiscal chasm that both parties have equally contributed to?

 

Cheer for your Dem if you want. I just hear that old refrain: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (I see Cheney and Rumsfeld leering. I've always suspected Jr was just in over his head. Yes, I know Obama was the incumbent. I know that cabinet left office four years ago. What I'm saying is, it doesn't matter.)

 

By the way, those of you who are anywhere from, say, 35-20 should be frothing at the mouth. You know we're completely f'd, right? All that money that comes out of our paychecks for programs like social security, all those kinds of things? That will be GONE when we come of age. You all know that, right? And neither party can help us. They both dug our f'ing graves.

 

They're all bleeding us dry. I don't care which primary color they don. (So...very unsatisfied is how I feel, in answer to the poll. And not because Obama won.)

[carlfense]

Carl-

Many local churches (mine included) were (still are) using their treasuries to support many things for which they had no biblical directives or authority, such as colleges, homes for unwed mothers, homes for the aged, etc. (this is like people who say the right to chose an abortion is in the Constitution) This is similar to the story that Ayn Rand paints with Lesley Munch etc... The scriptures do distinguish between individual and collective action. Paul wrote:

 

"16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" (I Tim. 5: 16).

 

The "any man or woman" constitutes individual action as opposed to "...Let not the church be charged...." or in the case of Atlas Shrugged the government directives that are instituted in the name of fairness. The collective action seen in the case of "the church" “Atlas government” involved the treasury of the local church. When the individual members contributed of their means into the treasury and then the treasury is used, the use of the treasury clearly constitutes collective action (Atlas action taken on producers). Since this seems to be a highly complicated matter and hard to understand today, allow me to present a simple illustration:

 

"John Doe out of his money gave one hundred dollars to the Save a Child Foundation versus Save a Child gave one hundred dollars to a family." Notice how that in this illustration (like Bush’s Faith Based initiative vs government welfare), there is both individual and collective action. John gave, is clearly individual action, but when Save a Child gave, this is indisputable collective action. John is an individual and Save a Child is an entity, having its own President, board of directors, treasury, and organizational structure. IRS certainly recognizes the differences between individual and collective action and so does the Bible, as seen (I Tim. 5: 16). The Bible so recognizes the difference between individual and collective or aggregate action that in the case of I Timothy 5: 16, one is required (individual) and the other is disallowed (collective). That is how the two are similar.

What are you trying to say?

 

Let me spell out my argument clearly and succinctly:

 

Atlas Shrugged and the Bible do not complement each other.

1. Atlas Shrugged preaches atheism and the worship of man and greed

2. The bible extolls physical poverty/unimportance of physical possessions and the worship of a supernatural god only.

 

Your posts wander so randomly that I can't see any point that you're trying to make.

[VectorVictor]

What are you trying to say?

 

Let me spell out my argument clearly and succinctly:

 

Atlas Shrugged and the Bible do not complement each other.

1. Atlas Shrugged preaches atheism and the worship of man and greed

2. The bible extolls physical poverty/unimportance of physical possessions and the worship of a supernatural god only.

 

Your posts wander so randomly that I can't see any point that you're trying to make.

 

Carlfense, be careful and tread lightly...he's playing a zero-sum game here.

 

By doubling down on opposing factors of derp, he's secretly hoping to somehow divide the universe by zero and create a tear in the space-time continuum that will destroy our planet...

 

And an image of the potential aftermath of Vizsla's actions:

 

[sd'sker]

Why the focus on the President?

 

The Supreme Court is not selected via any sort of popular election. But it's meant to be that way -- is there a good reason for this?

no, the supreme court (nor any judge) should be elected by popular vote. that is a terrible idea. then there would be no checks. the supreme court is to protect the minorities' rights.

[sd'sker]

How satisfied am I with the election results? Not very. But I am strangely at peace with it. I thought I would be much morqe disillusioned and upset with an Obama repeat but I am not. Honestly I am just glad it is over. And amazingly I was actually somewhat impressed with Obama's victory speech. Usually when I hear his voice I get the sensation of fingernails on a chalkboard but not last night. I think there may be something I could sense in his voice before that is no longer there now that he does not have to be concerned with getting elected. In fact I am now even becoming hopeful that he may be willing to compromise a little and not cater to the far left element as much. Might be crazy but I am strangely at ease at least for the moment. Still would have preferred to give the businessman a shot at some of our dire economic and fiscal problems but will give BO a chance and think I will be a little harsher with any obstructionist congress people if they continue to act in a manner that harms us.

well said. although i do not see where obama has catered to the far left element, i do agree with what you said and hope we see some compromise and solutions.

[Nebula]

What are you trying to say?

 

Let me spell out my argument clearly and succinctly:

 

Atlas Shrugged and the Bible do not complement each other.

1. Atlas Shrugged preaches atheism and the worship of man and greed

2. The bible extolls physical poverty/unimportance of physical possessions and the worship of a supernatural god only.

 

Your posts wander so randomly that I can't see any point that you're trying to make.

What is your intent here carl?

 

Your first statement is clearly accurate. The content of these writings do not intrinsically interact with each other.

1.) That's what I took out of it.

2.) Never read it, but from what I've been told this seems pretty spot on.

 

I don't like your usage of clear, rational logic. It makes me angry and confused.

[zoogs]

Why the focus on the President?

 

The Supreme Court is not selected via any sort of popular election. But it's meant to be that way -- is there a good reason for this?

no, the supreme court (nor any judge) should be elected by popular vote. that is a terrible idea. then there would be no checks. the supreme court is to protect the minorities' rights.

 

Precisely my point. A democracy does not mean all members of the federal government are elected. And the federal government isn't a top-down power structure either, with one man at the top. (We should shudder at that notion, by the way...and it is the antithesis of American.)

 

The federal government is a three-body structure each with specific checks and balances against one another's power.

 

Congress is elected via direct election by the people. That is the most powerful branch of government, the one with the power to make laws, and the one which represents primarily the people. And the president is elected by another method, by indirect election, because that office represents primarily, the states.

 

We elect our Congress and we tell our states how to elect the President. The President is not a ruler; he is not "*the* head guy"; he is merely the occupant of one of the federal government's multiple branches and I do not believe there is any particular ideological imperative that he should be decided by a national public vote.