What should my avatar be?

[Vosem]

Right. So I've been wondering whether R-IL or I-OH would be a better avatar to use on Atlas Forum, so I've decided to ask the Atlas community what they think. (yes, I know, shameless attention whore thread)

Pros and Cons:

R-IL. This is the avatar I have used almost continuously since I first registered in December 2009, excepting a brief stint as R-BC in mid-2010 when my presence was still largely limited to the What-ifs board, and a brief stint as C-RI in 2012 to show my support for the Coalition to Remove Inks. However, I no longer live in Illinois and no longer really identify as Illinoian. I am also uncertain about the R; while I do tilt pretty heavily towards the Republican Party (I'm sure the 'why' is unnecessary), I am open to occasionally supporting Democrats and I have some very left-wing views on social issues.

I-OH. The proposed new avatar, which would probably go along with a change in my screen name. This would reflect that I now live in Ohio, and would also better reflect my stances in favor of legalizing marijuana, against restricting abortion, and for marriage rights to be equal between hetero- and homosexuals. However, my shift from one avatar to another could cause confusion.

What do you think? The poll will run for a week, at which point I will change my avatar (or not) to reflect the final result.

[Northeast Representative Goldwater]

I don't really care if you change your avatar or not, although I tend to associate I avatars with people who are moderate on economics & liberal on social issues.

[Wolfentoad]

Keep it.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

C-OH.

[Frodo]

Other -R-OH.  You are still a Republican, if only a more libertarian-leaning one.  

And so what if you get confused by others with Mike Naso?  

[Northeast Representative Goldwater]

C-OH.

He's definitely not a Constitutionalist. The Constitution Party is conservitive on most social issues & isolationist on foreign policy, Vosem is liberal on most social issues & a hawk on foreign policy.

[Oakvale]

I-OH, assuming you don't want to be associated with Naso.

I also associate with Is with right-leaning posters, although I recently made the switch from O-IE because green... looks better.

[muon2]

Though I like the company of an another R-IL, if you aren't going to be in IL, then a change makes sense. There are plenty of libertarian Rs and ticket splitters who are predominately R. Consider how your position compares to Torie, and you may only want to change the state. If you find the the OH Rs are significantly different from your expectations then a shift to I may suit you better.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

You should wear the avatar of the place you live.

[Joe Republic]

You should wear the avatar of the place you live.

When did you move to California?

[FritzMacKenzie]

If you live in Ohio then that should be your avatar.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Do whatever you want, man.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

Nobody cares.

Actually, no... Urban Foundation - South Africa.

[Grumps]

Be like angus and myself (and maybe a couple of others) and don't use one.......be YOU.

[Vasall des Midas]

Other-Russia, except we don't seem to have a Russian avatar.

[VP Duke]

Be like angus and myself (and maybe a couple of others) and don't use one.......be YOU.

That's such a rebellious quote. Fight the labeling!

But as to Vosem's question, it doesn't really matter. We see people with green avatars who are more left wing than red avatars, blue avatars who are to the left of green and red...

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

You should wear the avatar of the place you live.

When did you move to California?

A couple months ago.

Nobody cares.

Actually, no... Urban Foundation - South Africa.

Yes!

[Formerly Californian Tony]

You should wear the avatar of the place you live.

When did you move to California?

Ahem...

[Vosem]

Nobody cares.

Actually, no... Urban Foundation - South Africa.

Yes!

Wikipedia isn't helping...what is this?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

R-IL, but that's your choice.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

All major business groupings supported the formation in 1976 of a "Free Market Foundation" to "spread the message of free enterprise to young blacks". On the joint initiative of Harry Oppenheimer of the Anglo American Corporation and Anton Rupert of the Rembrandt group, most of South Africa's major companies combined forces in 1977 to form the Urban Foundation. The establishment of the Urban Foundation "introduced the role of a 'specialist change agency' into the relationship between organized business and government". Its major objective was to assist in the development of a black middle class with "Western-type materialistic needs and ambitions". This was deemed essential because "only by having this most responsible section of the black population on our side can the whites of South Africa be assured of containing on a long term basis the irresponsible economic and political ambitions of those blacks who are influenced against their own real interests from within and without our borders."

[Vosem]

Having wikied the group's founders, it seems like a very admirable group with a good cause (pretty much everyone would be better off if a significant black South African middle class did exist, though trying to create one in the '70s was naive), founded by men who were active pushing for equal rights for all South Africans. Though the paragraph you quoted seems to have been written by someone with a less than positive view of them.

That said, such an avatar doesn't exist.