No one short of the most Asperger's inflicted person in the universe could embrace Objectivism as a whole. It's simply too all-encompassing. Rand doesn't just tell you how you should feel about economics or politics, she tells you how you should feel about everything in the world right down to what kind of art you should like.

That explains it.  Don't really have much expierence with the expanded Universe.

I could never get past how the force went from cool psychic powers in the movies to "I can destroy star destroyers with the force."

and if I remember correctly Luke Skywalker once uses the force to control black holes or something.

EU is ridiculious.

The problem with EU (as we dive headfirst into derailing this thread) is that there are too many authors. Like in one novel, the Force was used to push a fleet of star destroyers halfway across a star system, but it took a whole academy full of jedi to do it, and the jedi who was used as their "focal point" died in the attempt. I never read the one with Luke and Black Holes (possibly The Crystal Star, which i never read), but some of them made jedi powers ridiculous. Some villains had their characterizations changed completely from book to book, too, like Warlord Zsinj who went from your standard corrupt military warlord to a secret strategic genius who was only pretending to be corrupt and incompetent. Romances forged and broken (like trying to get Lando Calrissian together with Mara Jade, where the author that created Mara Jade later forced the issue by having her marry Luke, but then in the dreadful Yuuzhan Vong thing, she was killed off altogether, though decades later and with a kid out of it), and lots of geopolitical problems (one author liked to think that the Imperial Remnant was at the very center of the galaxy, while others put it for on the outer rim)

The funny thing is that even the Sith knew that their "Objectivism" didn't really work, which is why Darth Bane devised the Rule of Two. Too many Sith running around, all believing that the ends justified the means, and there could never be a stable Sith society. If there are only two, it's nice and stable.

A very interesting piece. I do think that there are many valid criticisms of the man and his policies. For one thing, if he values Ayn Rand so much, then why does he run for political office at all when Rand was opposed to the idea of government intervention. And how does Ryan defend himself as a staunch advocate of small government when he voted in favor of the Patriot Act, against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, for a constitutional Amendment against gay marriage. How can he say he is a fiscal conservative when he voted for deficit spending when he voted for the war in Iraq in 2003?

The man is very well educated, very articulate, and is very good at giving a speech. But I think that until he addresses criticisms like these, it'll be hard for me to take him seriously.

Because he's none of those things. He's nothing more than a hardcore RINO... the difference with Ryan is that everybody falls for it.

I don't like the man's policies either, but I'd keep the name calling and ad hominem attacks to yourself. If you want to criticize someone, please do so, it's your right, but do so in an articulate manner with actual points and evidence. Don't just call him a name and expect anything good to come of it. 

Man the choice for this election is terrible

I assume you know that RINO means "Republican In Name Only". The points and evidence are in your post.

Nope. Hadn't heard that. Sorry.