I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The person who paved the way for Barack Obama is Colin Powell. Powell was seriously considered to be the first black man who could be elected president. ..By both political parties. Condolezza Rice was considered a serious contender for the presidency. The Democrats were getting worried that the first black president would be a Republican since the only contenders they ever had was Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Obama was the first serious black Democrat that didn’t have the ‘marching in the streets, black people are still being oppressed by the wite man’ attitude. This is why the Democrats are so heavily invested in Obama.
If GW's poll numbers were 15 points higher, I bet Condi would be a slam dunk at VP. A black woman from the lower class who gutted her way to the top. And wants to be NFL commissioner one day. That is the good old boy network.
Aside from the fact that the comments herein have virtually NOTHING to do with this particular post, let me just say that even if Condi were a viable choice, she adds nothing to the ticket (save for the fact that she's a black woman and quite frankly; in as much as it's racist to NOT vote for someone based on race, so too is it racist to vote FOR someone based solely on race).
McCain's entire electoral strategy has been predicated on a path of moderation. As such, he ought to suck it up and pick a VP who exemplifies this theory.
Even if Goldwater were McCain's VP pick, the historical fact is that the VP's persuasions do not weigh heavily upon the President. In fact, quite the opposite occurs in that the liberal or moderate President pulls the more conservative VP towards his persuasions.
That said, I think it best to team a much more conservative VP candidate, not with a moderate like McCain, but rather with a real conservative.
It is a quote from John Galt in Ayn Rand's classic "Atlas Shrugged".
While you're telling yourself that you live for the sake of many people (your kids and husband) in actuality, you are living first and foremost for yourself.
In the hierarchy of your values, your children and your husband are at the utmost top of that tier.
Let me use another example to explain this if I may.
Let us suppose that you hadn't cleaned your house for a good two or three weeks. It's not over the top dirty but it could use a good dusting and vacuuming etc.
Now, let us suppose you were expecting some guests from out of town to come stay with you for the weekend.
Due to the fact that you are expecting company, you decide to clean the house.
It could be said that you cleaned the house for the sake of your guests. And, while that may be, in part, true...the first and foremost reason you cleaned the house is for your own sake.
You cleaned the house first and foremost because you didn't wish your guests to think of you as unkept.
We shall live for our own sake. And, when we say that we live for our own sake, this is not to suggest ourselves in a purely physical sense.
Living for your own sake encompasses your desires, your goals, your wishes, your pursuit, your endeavors, etc..
Let us suppose that your pursuit was to cure homelessness or hunger within your neighborhood. While that has far reaching benefits, it is a pursuit which YOU decide. As such, you are living for a purpose which is wholly decided by YOU.
In a Socialist society, our jobs, our pursuits, our aims are not wholly our own to pursue. Instead, we live for the state. We become property of the state. And, as such we live for the sake of the state for the benefit of ALL at the expense of ourselves and our own desires, pursuits, aims, and goals.
soap...sorry i am a little slow. i do see your point and agree with it. however, when it comes to my kids, i would still deviate with your explanation...just a bit.
6 comments:
The person who paved the way for Barack Obama is Colin Powell. Powell was seriously considered to be the first black man who could be elected president. ..By both political parties. Condolezza Rice was considered a serious contender for the presidency. The Democrats were getting worried that the first black president would be a Republican since the only contenders they ever had was Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Obama was the first serious black Democrat that didn’t have the ‘marching in the streets, black people are still being oppressed by the wite man’ attitude. This is why the Democrats are so heavily invested in Obama.
If GW's poll numbers were 15 points higher, I bet Condi would be a slam dunk at VP. A black woman from the lower class who gutted her way to the top. And wants to be NFL commissioner one day. That is the good old boy network.
Aside from the fact that the comments herein have virtually NOTHING to do with this particular post, let me just say that even if Condi were a viable choice, she adds nothing to the ticket (save for the fact that she's a black woman and quite frankly; in as much as it's racist to NOT vote for someone based on race, so too is it racist to vote FOR someone based solely on race).
McCain's entire electoral strategy has been predicated on a path of moderation. As such, he ought to suck it up and pick a VP who exemplifies this theory.
Even if Goldwater were McCain's VP pick, the historical fact is that the VP's persuasions do not weigh heavily upon the President. In fact, quite the opposite occurs in that the liberal or moderate President pulls the more conservative VP towards his persuasions.
That said, I think it best to team a much more conservative VP candidate, not with a moderate like McCain, but rather with a real conservative.
soap,
i am not sure what this post is all about, but i will comment on the quote you wrote under the picture.
I must say, that I would live for the sake of many people. My kids and husband , 1st in line.
kw
It is a quote from John Galt in Ayn Rand's classic "Atlas Shrugged".
While you're telling yourself that you live for the sake of many people (your kids and husband) in actuality, you are living first and foremost for yourself.
In the hierarchy of your values, your children and your husband are at the utmost top of that tier.
Let me use another example to explain this if I may.
Let us suppose that you hadn't cleaned your house for a good two or three weeks. It's not over the top dirty but it could use a good dusting and vacuuming etc.
Now, let us suppose you were expecting some guests from out of town to come stay with you for the weekend.
Due to the fact that you are expecting company, you decide to clean the house.
It could be said that you cleaned the house for the sake of your guests. And, while that may be, in part, true...the first and foremost reason you cleaned the house is for your own sake.
You cleaned the house first and foremost because you didn't wish your guests to think of you as unkept.
We shall live for our own sake. And, when we say that we live for our own sake, this is not to suggest ourselves in a purely physical sense.
Living for your own sake encompasses your desires, your goals, your wishes, your pursuit, your endeavors, etc..
Let us suppose that your pursuit was to cure homelessness or hunger within your neighborhood. While that has far reaching benefits, it is a pursuit which YOU decide. As such, you are living for a purpose which is wholly decided by YOU.
In a Socialist society, our jobs, our pursuits, our aims are not wholly our own to pursue. Instead, we live for the state. We become property of the state. And, as such we live for the sake of the state for the benefit of ALL at the expense of ourselves and our own desires, pursuits, aims, and goals.
Hope that clarifies things.
soap...sorry i am a little slow. i do see your point and agree with it. however, when it comes to my kids, i would still deviate with your explanation...just a bit.
kw
Post a Comment