http://www.americanthinker.com...

As gregster pointed out the man is evil and has to get the boot.

http://m.sodahead.com/united-s...

The most anti-american president in history

...could go either way.

It might remind people in the US that Obama hasn't responded to emergencies very well in the past.

Even if he pulls every finger on this one, US voters might be savvy enough to realise he's just courting votes.

I bet strategists on both sides are praying daily there is a photo of their guy rescuing a baby from a flood.

This storm off the east coast could not have come at a worse time.  All eyes will be on B.O. for how he handles the crisis and people being the sheeple they are may be swung to vote for him depending on how he handles the situation.

(He most assuredly is probably rejoicing inside..sick fuck that he is.)

I disagree with this post entirely even though it’s well meaning.

I’ve been mentally jotting down some ideas to explain my reasons for what I find is your intrinsicism in this matter Kyrel.

I believe you’re not allowing the full context of the voting situation, the high stakes, and confusing principle for pragmatism.
I've just seen one voice to expound a little on where I was generally heading, at The Objectivist Standard, quoted below.

Of course Romney and Ryan are far from ideal candidates. They are middle-of-the-roaders, torn between reverence for religion and respect for rights. But they are also far from as bad as Obama. There is a big difference between having a religion-induced misunderstanding of freedom, rights, and the American ideal on the one hand—and harboring outright hatred of freedom, rights, and America on the other. Likewise, there is a big difference between engaging in rights-violating policies because one is mistaken about what is the good, and engaging in such policies because one eagerly seeks to destroy the good. Such differences make a difference.

I will try to make my case clear when I get time. This reminds me of the Ground Zero mosque versus Property Rights, or, Open Immigration while disregarding the nature of the immigrant.

“However, if you self-assertively vote for individual rights and freedom, everyone will know.” I don’t believe they would pay any attention, unless there were electoral successes.

“if you do make the decision to perpetrate an act of political raw evil and vote for slavery … then recognize that as a result of your volitional act the freedom groups and parties will openly decline and the slavery folks will necessarily ascend.”

And be sure that a vote for the Libertarian candidate, being a vote for President B.O., will amount to a vote for slavery. Voters need de-programming first. Re-education is overdue.

Your words are inspiring; you speak to the radical in me, and you've convinced me to vote for a greater freedom, rather than a lesser evil. To cast a principled, not pragmatic, vote.

Also, this is a great line: "If not you, who? If not now, when?" It reminds me of the Bystander Effect: everyone standing around, each one expecting someone else to act.

One minor critique though.

Could this paragraph have been worded better?:

"But if you do make the decision to perpetrate an act of political raw evil and vote for slavery -- in the pathetic belief that "It's just this one time," or "It's only because this election is so damn important," and you think your one pitiful, meaningless, impotent vote among millions will make a difference -- then recognize that as a result of your volitional act the freedom groups and parties will openly decline and the slavery folks will necessarily ascend."

Why would a vote for liberty be any more potent than a vote for slavery? Is it more potent because it's a vote for liberty? Is that what you meant?

Thanks, Richard. I truly think Ayn Rand was an intellectual genius beyond compare. She taught the world as much as Francis Bacon, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Voltaire combined. She analyzed difficult and important philosophical and cultural issues, and got them right a stunning 98% or so of the time. BUT...

I think she erred on the issue of political voting. And because she (mostly accidentally) infused fairly strong religious and cultish aspects to considerable parts of her argumentation, most Objectivists today can't see thru her errors and rise above them. Ultimately, AR didn't fully understand or champion the glorious concepts of Reason, Individualism, and Independent Thinking, and thus most Objectivists are now stuck foolishly and depravedly voting for tyranny and their own doom.

This is a great post, Kyrel!

Your words should be tattooed on the foreheads of anyone thinking of voting for Romney (or - God forbid! - for Obama) - with no anaesthesia.

I'm Richard Goode and I approve this message.