Mammon

Just learn to produce something no one else can, or not a lot of other people can. Make yourself more valuable. Be the special sauce; not the vanilla.

The Beautiful People is more about hypocrisy in my opinion. Sit it in a Baptist Church for awhile and you'll see what he's talking about.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN01417488 The World Social Forum is going on at the same time as Davos, obviously to make a point. There are many in this camp that believe capitalism is dying or on it's way out because of the recent crisis. A globalized economy is something relatively new, just like freer economies were new during the 1800s. Leftists always seem to call victory too quickly. Another striking point is how these dialogues were centered around environmentalism. I don't see how people can see this and not still realize the green movement is essentially a socialist movement. On the other hand, the Davos meeting is supposed to "set the future of capitalism", or at least that's what I'm hearing. Again, how come Objectivist intellectuals didn't try to key speaking positions at the WEF events? Or did they? It would be a great way to get the message to people who actually need to hear it. I just think that the Objectivist intellectuals focus on the wrong audience most of the time.

This the video that won the contest to be shown at Davos this year. Davos is the World Economic Forums big meeting/event/convetion. I wanted to go more in depth with it, but I don't have the time at the moment. But I'll get back to it. I wanted to throw this out there to make everyone aware that this is what the leaders in economics, business and banking are seeing. I think Objectivists should focus on things winning this contest or getting speakers at the WEF. It would be very beneficial and you'd have the right audience.

Well, South Koreans hate Kim so much that when his father died everyone in the country gave out free merchandise and they had a huge party.

*looks at new thread* I called it.

Well, that definitely establishes more support for the case there.

I really don't care about hand-made boats. You can say I'm neutral on the subject, I don't know a lot about boats to appreciate the end result. But I said it was impressive because I appreciate the work. It's good to see someone building something for themselves, and to be passionate and creative about something. Or just something other than fiction writing.

Last time I checked, having a high presidential approval rating make doesn't you akin to a God. I'm taking an issue here because I think statements like that (the one made above that I quote originally) are both impossible to verify, and unnecessary to utter. Edit: It veer's things off-topic as well.

Can you point to evidence of people taking Obama's word as scripture? *** Mod's note: For a follow-up discussion on Obama's status as a God, cult-leader, etc. see this thread. - sN *** Sheesh. Anyways, the hang-up on corporate jets always amazes me. When you consider it costs about $100,000 a year to have one of these when the companies that buy them are making billions a year in revenue, it's not even one percent of their revenue. Those are modest estimates too. Yet, when it comes to drilling companies about their spending the jet purchase always seems to come first. Edit: I've got a book I need to finish reading on the subject of CEO compensation. Basically it's a report that says, in a nutshell, that these huge bonuses and options offerings actually make the companies a lot better. Instances like Tyco and Enron are the exception, not the rule.

You didn't put any Tony's or Tabasco in there, therefore it is not cajun!

Again I asked for, his words. The ones he said, not the ones you put in his mouth. Do you really not see the difference between what someone says and what someone tells you that person said?

You have not provided any quotes in which Obama actually defines what he means by "redistributive change" Or anyone else. Which is at the heart of the actually topic here, "Obama's Anti-Americanism". sNerd is going to have to split this topic again in not too long if it keeps going in this direction.

Impressive. You build boats for a living or is it a hobby?

I can't view it. No subscription.

Mammon is confused. Mammon hurt himself in his confusion.

preventing SNAPPING PHOTOS WITHOUT CONSENT AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT. Happy?

I agree with sNerd that there is zero chance of this happening. I think the media and politicians on every inch of the political spectrum will come out against it. It's just one of those things thats so ingrained in our culture now that it can't be changed. I mean, Republicans wouldn't want a Democrat to be elected forever and Democrats wouldn't want a Republican elected forever. They'd tear each other apart before it even came close to passing.

It's stupid to pass it because cameras already do this in the first place, for the exact same reason. It's like making in mandatory to have zippers or buttons on pants. I read a book published in 2005 that said digital cameras and phone cameras make noises to prevent pervs from snapping photos. The industry has been handling this for a while now on it's own.

That last sentence was an independent thought I just tagged on there. To clear it up for you, no... based on the snippets of that interview I don't think it's possible to conclude that he "wishes" the courts would bring about the "redistributive change" like Sophia said it meant. Or that, as she later puts it, it's trajedy that it didn't. He says it's a trajedy that the civil rights movement became more court focused. I was making a post to say just that to Sophia last night, but I saw her latest post, and that comment about me not understanding English and decided I don't have the time for that. Nothing factually incorrect was reported. Tapper presented both sides of the issue very clearly. To me, I think the talks of redistribution of wealth are about people having a knee-jerk, emotional reaction to a buzz word and proceeding to find as many ways to take it out of context, or twist it into something else, as they possibly can. Yes, and my point isn't about support of or for "redistribution". I could and I do.

That you cannot conclude that from that particular interview. There isn't much of his personal views you really can conclude from it to begin with. He was on the show as a commentator on the event. I don't think the Warren Court was very radical, so does that make me anti-American? Their is a huge gap between assumptions and factual truth that needs to be cleared. I wonder if "anti-American" is a floating abstraction? What is America exactly and how can you be "pro-" or "un-" or "anti-" it? Is it a geographic place, or a group of people or government institution, or history? The most I see in this thread is "America=My views" and if you're against their views on the subject, you're against America.

Really, Sophia? Do you have Obama on the record saying that he wishes it to be so? Did he say, anywhere in that interview, that he explicitly wishes it be so? In his exact words? It would be something like "I wish..." or "It should be like...." or "In my opinion the government should..." Because, frankly, you just made that up. You said he what his intentions and thoughts are without citing a single instance of that being the case. Do you even know what being "intellectually dishonest" means? It doesn't mean someone disagrees with you. It's what you did that is intellectually dishonest. Also, the link you posted was a edited version of the interview made by someone who clearly wants you to think a certain way about the words spoken there because it says something along the lines of "He says it's a tragedy that wealth wasn't redistributed to African-Americans" Please post something credible that gives the entire context. Like a transcript from the station. That would be intellectually honest of you. I think it's funny that you made a post like this. I also think it's funny that you expect people to just do as you command.

I said people would take it to mean something bad and they did. What does that mean when responses are so predictable? I'm pretty for sure he means everything he says. A.) Obama can't get Secretary Generalship because the United States is on the Security Council, which means that no one from that country can get the job. B.) If the world recognizes one leader and will follow that person. That's a huge achievement and step in the right direction. I didn't tell her because I have a fucking life and I don't have a duty to run here and tell you guys things that are right there for you to see just like I did. The fact that no posts showed up that day about it made me think you guys already knew. I figured you guys would stay on top of things. She's the wrong choice. What more is there to say?

Again, they voted for Obama because they wanted hand-outs! There can be no other reason. It can't be because people looked at the country, saw the shape it was in, who was leading it and decided the other guys might do a better job. In Edward Clineverse there is no reason to vote for Obama unless you are a mindless worshiper of the man who wants hand-outs. Oh good, you're going to actually use the persons words this time, instead of just telling us what he thinks and having us just believe your accusations on faith! And of course, you can't leave out the fact that Obama is a power-seeker. You have to make that perfectly clear and we have to faith in your omniscience once again. Of course, you can just leave out what contradicts your revisions here. It would be inconvenient to actually let people see the entire context. Then again, what a loss? I'm sure you can point out how Obama's use of the word "they" is a call for collectivist, altruistic, statist control over every single facet and second of everyones lives. Because, as you told us over and over again that's Obama's intent. Translation: "I'm mad because he didn't give the speech in the same way I would have and he didn't say what I wanted to hear. Therefore I'm just going to say what I want it to mean, and throw in some words and concepts Objectivists are familiar with and call it a day." Narcissism. It's not a clever tribute. It's not anything else. It's narcissism. I wonder if he was looking for a way to use that word the entire time? Just another way to paint Obama as being bad. Really?! How original. I never would of thought of that if you hadn't mentioned it. I mean, WOW. You are so original! That's an insight no one has ever made before! Why didn't Ayn Rand think of that!? Yes, one can be certain indeed, because Obama=bad. Everything he says is bad, everything he does is bad, everything he touches turns bad. The other day someone died... It's because of Obama eat breakfast. 9/11 happened because of Obama. Obama killed the dinosaurs, and the Obama created Hitler! So you can be definitely certain he will be wrong-headed. Everything bad in history happened because of Obama! Copy, paste, copy, paste, copy, paste. Assert, assert, assert, assert. Make sure you say what every other Objectivist says and say it in a way that you expect people to just know this. "What" "Obama" "is" "stating" "is" "whatever" "Edward" "Cline" "wants" "us" "to" "think", "or" "whatever" "he" "feels" "like" "intrepreting" "it" "as". He definitely couldn't do without making sure he associated Obama with every major evil in the last century. Couldn't leave that part out, in fact, he does it twice. That's a really shallow way to make a case there. "Obama uses a word that bad people use." This entire paragraph is just a list of noted evils which people are going to have a negative reaction to, and he makes sure to have Obama's name in there too. The leftists do the same thing with Bush. A serial killer said "eggs" one time ... everyone who says "eggs" is now a serial killer. Over all, the point is that his analysis is very shallow. It's just blatant smearing and it's not even written very good. Yet, this is what I see happening for the next four years. Dozens and dozens of Obama=bad articles coming from Objectivist writers and scores of Objectivists repeating what was said in those articles over and over again. Cline's calling the man a Tyrant before he even does anything. Do you think that's a little unobjective? I'm sick of the groupthink. People like Cline have it in their minds what they want to believe and will evade and actively search for anything to make them reality conform to their visions. Not the other way around. It's subjectivist and the fact that so many people do it, makes it collectivist, and the fact that he shows no signs of actually considering anything different shows he is not using reason. To me, Cline is doing everything Objectivism warns against. It's just dumb. The article holds as much water as a dessert and Cline comes off as a hack.

This is one of the worst things I've ever read. I read it the day Sophia posted it and I haven't had time to write what I thought, but it was bothering me so much I'm just going to do it. I'll specifically quote what I'm talking about. Given the sheer amount of crap this guy wrote, it's going to be a lot. In the first sentence, the first thing he has to do is equate Obama with something negative. This is tone for the entire article. Could it be that the media is just doing their job, which is to report stuff? No, it's "mindless happy talk"! Well guess what? It's Inauguration Day. It's a celebration, and a ceremony it's time to have more positive talk. It's like New Years, except it only happens every 4 to 8 years, which makes it historically significant and thats why they have generally positive commentary about the history of the event. Are people not allowed to be interested or happy about that? I'm not for sure what would make Cline happy here. If the commentary was something a long the lines of "Obama blinked twice in 10 seconds, that means he wants to enslave America!"... Which is actually, pretty close to his own commentary! A lot of people showed up to this and watched it. Yes, that's true. Because it's not something that happens every day. Are people not allowed to be interested in something rare and historic? Are they not allowed to show support for their country by watching it's elected leader get sworn in? At the last sentence here shows the answer is "NO!" ... If you watched the Inauguration you have to be someone who wants to be ruled over. Really? Here is where Cline begins to make himself up to be an omniscient deity. He knows what's going on in the heads of millions of people. It just so happens that all these people are wrong. Unlike the Enlightened Mr. Cline who bestows his wisdom down on us mere mortals in even more projections, free interpretations and postulating. Here is where I discovered the problem. He can't discern fact from fiction here. He can project his fantasies all over the world here and can't see past them. He needs to cast someone as the villain of the story he's making up in his head. So of course it's our newly elected Democrat President. Let us keep this in mind as we read further. You took personal offense because someone didn't say the words you wanted to hear? Cry me a river. I'd like direct quotes here, please. Not your projections and your attempts to put those words in the man's mouth. This is where any respect I had for this writer because instead of showing Obama saying these things, he is just insisting he believes, implies, or means these things. Things which Cline doesn't like. Because Obama has to be bad. He is the villain of the story here. Cline can rewrite reality to make it mean whatever he wants it to mean. You lose all credibility with language like this, but he continues and even acknowledges it... Of course, of course... just read his transcripts. Make sure you interpret them to mean whatever you feel like. As long as you interpret it to mean that Obama want's to be some sort of evil tyrant, dictator, or overlord then your correct. It can't be anything good or positive. Those ambiguities and populist parts are meant to appeal to a wider audience. The speeches are designed that way. You can project what you want onto Obama. In the case of Cline it's "BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!" Again, Cline is omniscient and knows what Obama is really thinking, which is naturally the absolute worse things. Again, he asserts Obama wants to rule, but where does he back any of this up? It's just pure speculation, postulating and projecting. I could write like this guy, "Edward Cline is a racist and a Republican talking head. All one has to do is look at everything he says. All of his books have always been broth with inflammatory and accusative language addressed to the worst in men, concealing an intention to be a cool leader of the new Revolution against the new Tyrant-in-chief and to be loved and worshiped as a freedom-fighting hero!" If I wrote that, the member of this board and the saner people in the world would probably scold me for it. Yet this guy can get away with it. And it gets worse and worse. Here he throws everyone into a big group which, of course, has to be thoughtless. He knows the minds of millions of people apparently. And this the only reason to like Obama. If your a horribly stupid human being. It can't be for any other reason, can it Mr. Cline? This type of language litters the rest of the sorry excuse of an article. Obama has "worshipers" apparently. I have to divide it here for fear of running out of quote brackets.