That's right. You are the woman who calls everyone 'Bubba.'

Why? Is it your way of trying to end the conversation? Is it like a nervous tic or something? Honestly, I don't get it. Do you believe everyone who challenges your thinking is from the backwater South?

Story:

I am sorry but I have become a one-issue voter. (I never thought I would.) The only thing that matters over the next 5 years is the federal debt, the annual deficit, and the corruption in the halls of Washington. Everything else is a side show right now.

Our house is on fire and arguing about abortion or gay marriage or immigration is the equivalent to reorganizing the kitchen cabinets while the fire and smoke rages around us.

The reason I became a one-issue voter is that many of the other problems we are dealing with including Obamacare, immigration, social issues, military, etc. will be naturally fixed when we learn to balance our budget and cut spending.

So whichever candidate can do that best gets my vote. So yes, earmarks and the attitude associated with them is a big deal to me.

I don't want us to look like Greece in 5 years and that is where we are heading very quickly.

Ok, I agree that most of us have "awakened" in the past few years to a better appreciation of the role of government, the Constitution, spending, etc. And you might be exactly right about Santorum changing as well.

One thing that does bother me, is that McCain is on record saying that the reason he gave his support to Romney was because Romney was the only candidate that convinced McCain that he would be serious about reigning in earmarks permanently. You can say alot of negative things about McCain, but he has been a tiger on Washington spending and earmarks calling them a "gateway drug to corruption."

He did not feel as uplifted in his discussions with Santorum and Gingrich on this issue. So take that for what it is worth.

According to the website, there isn't much difference between Romney and Santorum.

Does his love of earmarks not bother you?

According to the US Constitution, a US president cannot repeal anything. That is Congress' job to do. So what Romney was saying, is that on Day One, would issue an executive order to allow all 50 states to opt out of the program. That would be within his presidential power to do. However, it will be up to Congress is actually repeal the legislation. So we need control of both houses of Congress to complete the task. Do you believe that Romney would veto the repeal of Obamacare after everything he has said about it?

Also, we should take off our 20/20 hindsight glasses, and remember that no one had a problem with Romneycare before Obamacare. Why? Because regardless of how the Obamacare debacle shakes out, we still need healthcare reform. We need tort reform so doctors can't be sued out of existence, we need to able to select less costly alternatives. We need to figure out a way to solve a children's ear ache without having to pay $150 for an office visit and $50 for medicine. I want less government involvement and more free market, but that includes destroying some sacred cows on both the left and the right. Romney attempted to do something in Massachusetts. I agree with you it is not the best plan. But if it works for that state's citizens and they want it (not sure they do) then they have the right under the Constitution to proceed in that way.

If we are all going to wrap ourselves in the Constitution, then we need to understand that the individual states have tremendous authority under this document. The Founding Fathers felt that we could more easily influence and persuade our local leaders than Washington.

Typical liberal logic-- attempt the re-define the issue to fit your needs. No one is suggesting that an individual can't have contraception-- only asking why should a religion be forced to support something it does not believe in.

He doesn't have an argument for that point, so he starts talking about completely unrelated issue. Weak, fat boy.

I disagree with your premise. Rand maintained a series of values about what it meant to be a free-thinking individual.

There is some overlap between Christ and Rand. Though I do believe that you cannot be a discipline of both.

Two major things they both believe strongly in:

1) Truth-- in all its forms-- especially being true to oneself.
2) Free agency or free will -- the ability (and liberty) to be free to make your own choices.

Do you believe that Ayn Rand believed that it was an evil act when Andrew Carnegie donated money to the poor?

If Andrew Carnegie himself said that he felt it was in his own interests to donate this money, that his attitude would be considered evil by Rand?

What Ayn Rand is saying in your quote is that any outside influence that would FORCE Carnegie to live as that outside influence would dictate is evil.

She is saying, in her mind, that no right thinking capitalist would ever consider giving away his money. Fine. But I have seen many great capitalists do just that. And I believe that they feel that giving this money to other causes IS in their self interest-- even if it is only for the betterment of mankind.

And I have seen Rand say on multiple occasions, look it up on YouTube, I believe it was either a Mike Wallace or Phil Donahue interview, where she has said that it is a rich man's right to give away money, but that it shouldn't be considered a moral good to do so.

If you are saying that Rand is also saying that the rich man could no longer be considered a capitalist at that point, fine...whatever, we can all disagree on that.

In other words, was Ebenezer Scrooge a capitalist before his intervention with the ghosts, but afterwards, he was not a capitalist?

The first quote you reference supports my thought. That what is evil is FORCING others to be altruistic. Not a free man choosing to do whatever he wants, including helping the poor, is evil. If that is the case, then Rand was a raging hypocrite.

On the second quote, she simply overreaches. It is her weakness. There have been many successful capitalists who have donated their wealth to others when they no longer need it. It should be their right. Some of them even like it. It makes them feel good to build a library or a museum. So in a sense, it is a self-interest on their part.

Again, as long as one has the freedom to donate or not-- that is the morality, not whether they actually do it.

Sent from my iPhone