Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Obama is President

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

He's a long time chairmember of the Senate's Foreign Relations Commitee.

I believe it counts for something though I can't cite any specific examples where he has greatly effected are foreign policy.

but hey it's still better than "I can see Russia from my state"

So your only evidence is that Biden has experience, and by experience you mean temporal prolongation in a given position? If experience entailed intelligence, your reasoning would therefore lead to the conclusion that President Bush, who has been a long time commander-in-cheif, is one of the smartest people on the topic of presidency, a statement which would generally be denied quite vehemently. Being a chairmember of such-and-such committee counts for "something," but that something says nothing about his intelligence.

If, however, you'd like to fall back on your "at least he's not Palin" argument, I will agree with you in that he is not Sarah Palin, nor is he Oscar Wilde, nor is he a cat. The infinite realm of possibilities regarding who Biden is not, however, conveys very little about who he is. You've actually told us more about Palin than you have of Biden, which makes me wonder why anyone should heed your forecast of a "silver lining" when all you have shared about this cloudy character is that he will obscure the clear skies which allow Palin to see Russia from her state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If, however, you'd like to fall back on your "at least he's not Palin" argument, I will agree with you in that he is not Sarah Palin, nor is he Oscar Wilde, nor is he a cat. The infinite realm of possibilities regarding who Biden is not, however, conveys very little about who he is.

However, the relevant, specific possibility of who he might have been replaced with is certainly a valid comparison. It may not discuss who he is, but it certainly is relevant to any discussion of the two. Biden would never have been idiot enough to make the tenderfoot mistake of offering up temporal prolongation in proximity to a foreign nation as a sign of experience.

Get off your high horse. Kelly appropriately qualified her evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the relevant, specific possibility of who he might have been replaced with is certainly a valid comparison. It may not discuss who he is, but it certainly is relevant to any discussion of the two. Biden would never have been idiot enough to make the tenderfoot mistake of offering up temporal prolongation in proximity to a foreign nation as a sign of experience.

Get off your high horse. Kelly appropriately qualified her evidence.

Yeah, that's true, but Kelly also said Biden is one of the smartest people on foreign relations, because he's been on that commitee for a long time: that should not make her feel too happy about her line of reasoning.

Plus, if Biden lived in Alaska, his view of Russia on a brisk morning would've been the first thing he would've brought up. The man's been running for Congress for decades on the basis that he's a simple man from Scranton, who loves his hoagies and his Eagles, for God's sake. Why do you think he kept the stupid accent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, if Biden lived in Alaska, his view of Russia on a brisk morning would've been the first thing he would've brought up. The man's been running for Congress for decades on the basis that he's a simple man from Scranton, who loves his hoagies and his Eagles, for God's sake. Why do you think he kept the stupid accent?

Biden also stops in to Katie's Diner (I think that was the name) in the morning for a cup of coffee with the local working men. You know, just to stay in touch with real people who get up every day and struggle to scratch out their meager existence in this cruel dog-eat-dog capitalist nation. Only problem is that Katie's closed 20+ years ago. :) How dumb do these bastards think the American people are?

As far as Biden and foreign policy goes, he's the guy who claimed at the VP debate that we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebannon and then he and Obama pushed for NATO troops to occupy the country. Sorry, but none of that ever happened. He was also opposed to the first Gulf War, he voted in favor of the 2003 Iraq war and then opposed the so called troop surge in Iraq, he opposed aiding the Nicaraguan Contras, he voted to ban the production and use of landmines by the US military, he also opposed the delployment of Pershing II misiles in Europe, he voted for NAFTA but has recently opposed CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement), etc... Seems like a pretty mixed record at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a slight change of pace: are we now going to have to get used to the phrase "The President's family sacrificed an animal today."? Have you heard that phrase on TV yesterday? To me it was quite an eloquent description of multiculturalism in America.

It's not about civil rights, or "judge a person by his character, not by the color of his skin", it's about "The President's family just sacrificed an animal" being a perfectly acceptable, positive news story about how much "progress" we've made.

Is that really the culmination of 250 years of being at the top of the food-chain, as a country, the culmination of all the scientific innovation and economic progress?

The industrial revolution, the technological revolution, and now we use the Internet and the satellites orbiting the Earth to watch the president's family sacrificing animals on the other side of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no one to blame than George Bush. Now I truly understand why Leonard Peikoff said he would be apocalyptically bad. He would increase spending and run up a deficit in the name of capitalism and tarnish it's name for the next several years.

George Bush calling any of his policies "Capitalistic" is like looking at a duck and calling it a horse.

As soon as the Socialistic programs begin, I think it would be an awesome time for the ARI to mount an offensive. You could even give it a catchy name like "Restore the Republic" (like the Ron Pual campaign did, except you could make it principled this time and actually EXPLICITLY reject BOTH political parties) ...that'd probably be good about 4 years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a slight change of pace: are we now going to have to get used to the phrase "The President's family sacrificed an animal today."? Have you heard that phrase on TV yesterday? To me it was quite an eloquent description of multiculturalism in America.

It's not about civil rights, or "judge a person by his character, not by the color of his skin", it's about "The President's family just sacrificed an animal" being a perfectly acceptable, positive news story about how much "progress" we've made.

Is that really the culmination of 250 years of being at the top of the food-chain, as a country, the culmination of all the scientific innovation and economic progress?

The industrial revolution, the technological revolution, and now we use the Internet and the satellites orbiting the Earth to watch the president's family sacrificing animals on the other side of the world.

Jake, you can't choose your family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Bush calling any of his policies "Capitalistic" is like looking at a duck and calling it a horse.

Yes, absolutely. But he still calls his policies capitalistic; worse yet the public and the media perceive them as capitalistic. So it isn't enough merely to say "oh, that's not really capitalism." It puts us in the same spot as "moderate" muslims saying terrorism and suicide bombings are not really Islam, but offering no facts to the contrary and showing support for them anyway.

What we need to do is show how Bush's policies were not capitalistic, and how the free market is really a regulated market, and so on. Otherwise we'll get nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake, you can't choose your family.

You can choose not to celebrate them.

Anyway, my point was on american culture, not Obama's choices. I think this reflects on our culture more than on Obama.

I guess Obama did, at least to some extent, distance himself by saying he barely knows this side of his family. (but he did travel to Kenya and he did pose with them, when that was politically convenient) In his place, I would've thanked my lucky stars that I was an american and I would've never looked back. (which I guess he kindof did, even if he never articulated it in public)

That was not my point though, my point was that we should be repulsed by that culture, and instead we are celebrating it as an achievement that we found a link between animal sacrifice(or whatever primitivism we can find in Obama's lineage) and the Presidency. (and we will probably see images of a sanitized version of that culture tied to the Presidency for the next four years. They are already planning a visit to the White House)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's true, but Kelly also said Biden is one of the smartest people on foreign relations, because he's been on that commitee for a long time: that should not make her feel too happy about her line of reasoning.

Thanks Jake, that's correct. I didn't say she appropriately qualified her conclusion, only her evidence. She admitted that the tenure in and of itself didn't say as much. No reason to beat her up about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now they are saying Obama is the President of the world! I mean, OK, the guy is colored and he broke a precedent, but what are they really cheering, the fact that he is black or the fact that he will be less intrusive and more socialistic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they conclude that when Obama's socialist agenda didn't work out?

I am speaking of the short term, in the inevitable post-mortem that the GOP will conduct. Waiting for Obama's socialism to fail is a longer-term view. The Republicans will conclude that their last remaining vestiges of support for capitalism are what doomed them in this election. To act in any other way would require that they check their premises and stop looking at ideas through the filthy lens of pragmatism.

Pragmatism always takes the lead in welfare-state politics. The "correct" policies and ideas are the ones that lead to electoral victory and therefore power. The GOP will look at this election and see that a socialist candidate swept to victory and built up a massive cult of personality as well. Watch for Republicans that try to out-Democrat the Democrats. Because that is how they think they will win next time.

For the Republicans to embrace capitalism and to become the party of individual rights, limited government and free markets would take a complete intellectual revolution within the party. The religious right is unlikely to sit still and let that happen. They will fight it tooth and nail.

Well, now they are saying Obama is the President of the world! I mean, OK, the guy is colored and he broke a precedent, but what are they really cheering, the fact that he is black or the fact that he will be less intrusive and more socialistic?

Hmmmm....worldwide socialism anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are definitely going to try to push for some sort of global socialism:

Political leaders urged U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday to help forge a new economic order to lead the world out of its worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

....

"We need to change the current crisis into a new opportunity. We need a new deal for a new world," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

Besides that, I disagree that Rahm Emanuel is a poor choice for Obama, especially insofar as he wants some sort of national service. That's right up Obama's lane.

However, I would certainly say any forced participation in national service would be involuntary servitude and therefore unconstitutional. Not that this will stop them from trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people here act like Obama is going to get sworn in and immediately march over to the National Archives where he will proceed to tear up the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the thunderous roar of a crowd millions.

You think he won't?

Obviously, that wasn't serious, but it's already been done figuratively. FDR did it in 100 days. Wilson did it in one act. It's mostly been a prop for the government for a 100 or so years. If he did do it, it wouldn't mean much. Just enhance his image.

Some pictures I've found:

n722020689_327766_4313.jpg

obamunism1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, you are attacking a strawman here. I didn't say anything about him being a SUPER-socialist. You are exaggerating things. Whoever else in this thread you are arguing with, don't project your imagination on me.

I'm exaggerating on purpose. A little reductio ad absurdum. I'm trying to get you to say "yes" or "no" to the claim that Obama is some sort of "super-socialist"... It's not just you. The board is also my audience. I like to frame the dialogue to include both a singular approach and a broad approach.

So, I'm the exagerator? Scroll up and you will see a picture of Obama place over an American flag with the Soviet symbol on it. Is this an accurate potrayal of Obama. Yes or no? Why or why not?

I did not state that to necessarily be the case, but you seem naive to the possibility that Obama might not be entirely forthcoming with his agenda.

And you seem naive to the concept of a counter-arguement.

But it is a matter of fact that he has represented himself to be in favor of several things of a socialistic nature. Whether that earns him the label of socialist or super-socialist only time will tell.

See? I've accomplished what I wanted. I want the discussion to be more in tune with reality. It's one thing to call someone a socialist, it's another to say they have socialistic ideas and point to some examples.

That must have been a rhetorical question because even if I disagree with on Obama, I gave you credit enough for being able to tell when someone is lying or has lied or not.

What are my views regarding Obama?

I bet some people on this forum were at his victory speech...

What if they were? What does that mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are my views regarding Obama?
How about answering your own question? You have been more than a defender of the man, you are enthusiastic about his presidency. Since this is a board for the discussion of Objectivism, would you care to put your support for him into that context? What is it, exactly, about Obama's political, economic or ethical philosophy that an admirer of Objectivism should find attractive?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only will we have a Black President, but a fully Asian army too! Oh, the HUMANITY!

At least we know that Obama is not going to cater to the Christians.

Oh I don't think we know that at all. Obama was more than happy to embrace Christianity during the campaign and now we'll have to see where he takes it during his presidency. The Left as a very strong religious component. To dismiss that religious emphasis is to stick your head in the sand....not that you'd ever do that in connection with Chairman Obama, Mammon. :lol:

See? I've accomplished what I wanted. I want the discussion to be more in tune with reality. It's one thing to call someone a socialist, it's another to say they have socialistic ideas and point to some examples.

Well you certainly are a clever fellow. Now that you've accomplished what you wanted, why don't you tell us how an Obama presidency is going to promote individual rights in this country. Please follow your own advice and point to some concrete examples. Give us half a dozen or so if you don't mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm exaggerating on purpose.

...

So, I'm the exagerator?

Ahh, yea. So you think it's a good argument technique to lump other people's thoughts and statements into your responses to my thoughts and statements? That causes a lot of confusion.

I'm trying to get you to say "yes" or "no" to the claim that Obama is some sort of "super-socialist"

Which is kind of pointless because I didn't make that claim.

And you seem naive to the concept of a counter-arguement.

Quaint, but inaccurate. Let me know when you post one that actually addresses my statements and not other people's.

See? I've accomplished what I wanted. I want the discussion to be more in tune with reality

This coming from a person who just suggested I'm naive to the concept of a counter-argument. You take credit for me bringing this "more in tune with reality". Man, you are all over the place.

It's one thing to call someone a socialist, it's another to say they have socialistic ideas and point to some examples.

All that's left is the doing. I think that's what rational people wanted to avoid.

What are my views regarding Obama?

You don't know yet? Usually the people I argue with state those things themselves. Okay, I'll think for you... you think he's the second coming bastion of freedom and liberty for all. You embrace the idea that he wants to redistribute the wealth from the productive to the 'needy'; you think he should rape coal companies because he knows what's best for our energy needs and our market; you think it's fine that he had long-standing relationship with people who would also further these ideas and more to level the 'playing field', if not level the whole country. (How's the for exaggeration?)

If you want to continue to respond "broadly" to my comments lumping my position in with everyone else's, let me know so I can stop wasting my time. It would probably be far better to let you learn from life experiences anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...