Believe it or not, 70-year-old me became a lib during the late 60s but was ready to vote for Ronald Reagan by 1980.
Living through Jimmy Carter and my 30th year were among factors that helped with that.
I first heard of Ayn Rand when AS1 was listed on Netflix.

Bravo! (-: +1

Excellent point Mac. I have seen with my own eyes how in youth a lot of people tend to be liberals but change at some point as they grow old and wiser. McCain seems to be going in reverse and becoming liberal as he ages. I'm of the belief he has lost the twins along the way.

You do seem to have some entrenched preconceptions....I would respectfully suggest that the .." People who would rather turn over their right to think to some organizational label" might actually number you amongst their ranks. You sir are the one using labels and shibboleths to describe large swaths of people. You, in your second paragraph go on to assume I am speaking of Republicans when I talk about the politically conservative American. As to your contention that "That means Education, Health Care, Protection of the law, etc. NONE of these should be more available to a monied (sic) elite than they are to the rest of the population." ....The politically conservative American also has these same rights too. All too often we see the so called liberals in the country today, hell bent on denying no only the aforementioned rights and privileges to this group but also an attempt to deny the average producer in this country, the fruits of his own labor.

I have my own way of looking at it. I've said this before in the Gulch, but may as well repeat:

Socialists are a misguided people who have become so frustrated over their inability to make the lame walk that they cripple everyone in the name of equality. Communists are of similar bent except their frustration is over raising the dead.

Also:

Socialist policies can be made to appear to work as long as there is a strong enough capitalist base to support them.

Here lies the problem with hero worship. That is, what does the worshiper do when yesterdays hero morphs into today's village idiot?

you are mistaken. I recommend research, beginning perhaps with a glance at a 100 year old dictionary and comparing it with a contemporary one, and education in literature and history.

As much as I enjoy Ayn Rand's novels, the ideals of which tend to be capital(istic), it is important to always keep in mind that she creates an idealized setting that tends to ignore true human nature, choosing rather to paint a picture of human nature that more harshly contrasts with the ideals of her protagonists.

I equally enjoy Victor Hugo's novels. He is also an idealist. His ideals are social(istic). His life span wasn't long enough to notice that universal education was not enough to cure poverty, illness, ignorance or to eliminate crime.

IIf you want to have your mind blown, llok at the difference in the definition of Socialism in the Webster's Dictionary of 100 years ago and compare it to the definition in the Webster's dictionary of today. Socialism is an idea that requires encyclopedic coverage to define, at the least, and thousands of pages of literature and history to understand, if you want to be thorough. 100 years ago, the Editors of Webster's understood this. Today, what you find there is a succinct definition of Soviet Communism and people who choose not to think quote it as if it were a legitimate definition of Socialism.

Very well stated.

"So....What are "Neanderthal knuckle-draggers (non-wimpy)"? You know. People who think violence is an acceptable solution. People who would rather turn over their right to think to some organizational label and use labels to categorize others, because it is too much work to think for themselves and consider ideas on their merit.
" the real definition of a..." politically conservative American." which is what? A lot of Democrats are politically conservative. A lot of Republicans are liberal, some of those have even served as President. If you are not a constitutionalist, you are not politically conservative, in my humble opinion. The constitution calls for equal access to all rights and privileges of citizenship. That means Education, Health Care, Protection of the law, etc. NONE of these should be more available to a monied elite than they are to the rest of the population. It is only a matter of time until each of them becomes constitutionally defined and protected.

Dads are often proud of their sons regardless.

If Jacobs actually grabbed Gianforte's wrist, here in Alabama that's called "putting your hands on somebody" and that's a big no-no.
In fact,it is an assault and the grabbee has a right to defend himself against the grabber.
Should the grabbee (I made that word up) has witnesses to that as being a stated (true or not) fact, he/she is pretty well in the clear.

LOL! (I've been gone since noon CT)

From the article:

“Lots of guys who are phenomenally successful in modern societies would probably be nowhere near as successful in hunter gatherer societies.”

Bill Gates comes to mind.....

Thanks! Nice to meet a fellow Mitch Rapp fan. I'm reading the books over again not only for the escapism but because I like it when America wins.
A Mitch Rapp movie will be out in September, but you probably know that..

I recall once in Montana a long time ago, some felon (I believe his sentence was involving a child) was being released from prison. The public was not too fond of the release. Somehow the news reported the release and then gave day, of release, the specific time, and even which gate he was being released from. Then the authorities decided it wasn't in anyone's best interest and the release was stopped. Talk about political correctness, this was one of the good examples. Montana is a beautiful state, hopefully the Hollywood liberals that are moving there don't totally destroy it.

I was wondering if Mitch Rapp was just trying to impress voters to get the vote the way Trump did, try something that everyone has actually thought about, would like to do, not politically correct, and totally out of the ordinary. It seems to have worked for him. Now the republicans will support him and the democrats will want him incarcerated without any kind of trial. Today we don't even have to listen to the news, we already know exactly how each party will respond to every situation, period. It makes for a dangerous world for us (the United States), that party thing, especially today when the democrats have control of educating our youth. Too many of our youth are being brainwashed. I'm thinking about protesting the support of our higher education from my tax dollars.

What's really bizarre is that his son is a crack shot with rifle and shotgun, and is an amazing hunter (he keeps two family freezers full of game year round). My nephew also works for one of the best military/law enforcement style rifle manufacturers in the country. Oddly, his dad is very proud of him, but won't touch a gun himself.

I never even thought about that, but it seems to make sense. Of three liberals I still know all of them are wimps now that I think about it. It also seems to have a lot to do with their intelligence, at least their ability to learn anything. That's only my observation, not a scientific study.

The same applies to women. Haven't you all noticed that the hardcore liberal/progressive/socialists females are generally ugly as hell? At an early age, most people have socialists leanings (adolescent, really), but with adulthood, grow out of it (sometimes the adulthood comes late, say at 40+). The hardcore that remains are (mostly) otherwise failures in life, in the looks department as well as in the brains department.

Socialism, communism, capitalism - those are economic systems. They have actual definitions. What you have listed are adolescent feelings that progressive snowflakes use as justification for not going to school.

I agree that it's important to define one's terms. Ayn Rand's opinion was that the difference between socialism and communism was the difference between suicide and murder. When we consider "the kind of social reforms that eliminate poverty, hunger, disease, ignorance," the key factor to me is not whether the specific reforms will be chosen by a dictator or by the people democratically, but what the reforms are and how they will be implemented. Under socialism or communism (or any form of government, actually), the reforms will be implemented using government force to take away rights and property from some individuals who rightfully (naturally) possessed them, for the benefit of other individuals chosen by the ruling class.

As a practical matter, many of the reforms advocated by socialists and communists have been tried in various countries, to various degrees, over the past hundred years, and those reforms have had not been successful in eliminating or even reducing poverty, hunger, disease, ignorance, or class distinctions. Rather, they have increased those social ills.

As a moral matter, initiating force (threats or actual imprisonment, physical harm, and/or death) to achieve your preferred social goals is wrong. The ends do not justify the means. The individual matters, and the individual's rights and happiness and well-being should not be sacrificed for the illusory "common good."

I'm not sure why you say the reporter from the Montana situation was a "snowflake." Perhaps you have information I'm not privy to? From the recording, it sounds like he was just doing his job (which includes being somewhat persistent in trying to get a quote) and the politician responded with irrational anger and a physical attack. http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/24/rep...

The linked article only provides audio of the altercation, while video would have provided more details. The politician's handlers have tried to justify the attack by claiming the reporter was asked to lower the recorder and leave, but that is not in the audio. The handlers also claim that the politician grabbed for the reporter's phone (which is an admission of assault, I believe), which made the reporter grab the politician's wrist and cause them both to fall. From the audio, this attempted justification does not ring true to me. I hear the politician acting out of control, shouting and angry in response to a reporter doing what reporters do. If he can't handle being questioned without erupting in anger, he seems like the snowflake in this situation, and he really shouldn't be pursuing any kind of public position which necessitates interacting with the press.

My two cents' worth: I don't consider bullies who respond to words with physical violence to be heroes. And I don't think reporters who merely press public figures for an answer are "snowflakes." I also don't think that anyone - snowflake or not - is deserving of physical abuse in the absence of threatening or initiating a physical attack. Are they annoying? Sure. Does anyone irritated with a snowflake or a nosy reporter have the right to beat them up? No.

No, but I sort of like those cars. I relied on bike, bus, cab, and occasional car rental from 2004-2010. I bought a used Mazda in 2010. I still travel by bike about half the time the car nearly the other half and use the bus only if I'm going downtown. The Mazda still runs great despite its being 15 years old.

Just curious, do you happen to drive a Subaru or a Volkswagen? I'm testing a theory.