Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Fireball

What to expect in the next 4 years

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

*Sigh*, this is old....

Are there still people who think McCain would have been some sort of better executive figure? There is no ideological difference between the two goofballs who ran for office.

The claim that Obama will "Curtail military while expanding entitlement programs" is totally absurd because it is such a wide generalization that it actually means nothing. By "curtail military" do you mean decrease military spending, or do you mean killing troops and burning firearms? Ok, do you mean decrease nominal military spending, or do you mean decrease real military spending? Do you mean decrease military spending relative to GDP? Or do you mean that military spending will remain the same while entitlement spending grows? I know if I was President I would cut military spending so drastically that I guess it would be absurd. I would eliminate all Islamofascist threats with the most sophisticated weaponry possible and then bring all of military units home.

agrippa: Yes, of course I've heard Obama. I've read his book, Audacity of Hope, which outlines his major ideas of how government should run and function. Have you read it? The fact of the matter is that no President controls the direction of this country; intellectual thought does that. I expect better from someone on an Objectivist board.

Edited by adrock3215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh give me a break.

I've been very critical of people who treat Obama like he's the second coming of Christ, but I'd be inconsistent if I wasn't equally critical of

these visions of the coming apocalypse. One of the more evil men in history? Really? I don't agree with the guy's politics, but "evil?"

In other news: THE SKY IS FALLING!

"Well today we have a 80% chance of being Nuked, but we'll see that number drop towards the weekend. So if you want to have your picnics in Obama Park, I'd cancel those plans! Back to you, Tom."

"Thanks Jim for the weather! Now, Mr. Doug N. Cover here is going to give us tips on how to prepare an effective bomb shelter. Doug, tell us: What can we do to avoid being caught in nuclear radiation and... oh no, the lights went out. Looks like another of those mass power outages. Thank Obama we have most of our stuff, including our cameras and televisions, on batteries now. Anyway, that looks like all the time we have today, people of the ObamaNation! This is Barry Mialive, reporting from Channel 9 News. Thanks for watching."

----------------------------

Anyway, I hate the guy. Obama, that is. I really, really do. I hate McCain too, and I was keeping my fingers crossed that by the grace of all that is good that neither would get elected. Maybe a loophole or something. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Objectivist Lawyers on the Forum!) :P

Sensationalism isn't going to help anything. It's about to get worse, at a higher rate than before, but not because of Obama. It's been a long, long time coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh give me a break.

I've been very critical of people who treat Obama like he's the second coming of Christ, but I'd be inconsistent if I wasn't equally critical of

these visions of the coming apocalypse. One of the more evil men in history? Really? I don't agree with the guy's politics, but "evil?"

In other news: THE SKY IS FALLING!

What? He ranks right up there with Carter, Hitler, FDR, and Stalin. What planet are you living on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think it is proper, Mammon, for the state to "demand" such things from private industry? Are you familiar with such things as freedom of speech? Individual liberty? Objectivism?

Why yes, I'm familiar with these things, are you?

I also believe that things should be properly identified and not misconstrued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What? He ranks right up there with Carter, Hitler, FDR, and Stalin. What planet are you living on?

FDR and Carter were horrible presidents but they were not nearly as evil as Hitler and Stalin. FDR and Carter didn't send people to concentration camps.

Anyways, I found an article giving a glimpse of the coming administrations military plans. Bringing it up because it was mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What? He ranks right up there with Carter, Hitler, FDR, and Stalin. What planet are you living on?

If this had come from someone else, I would brush it off as sarcasm, but given the post you made about him on the first page, I'm gonna have

to assume that you're serious. In which case...are you f***ing kidding me? Carter and FDR were awful presidents and it remains to be seen

if Obama will be as bad as them, but "evil?" Jesus Christ. Shouldn't that word be reserved for...Hitler and Stalin. Oh wait, you somehow have

the warped view that Carter, FDR, and Obama are as bad as men who systematically murdered millions of people and plunged the world into a

war that that cost 60 million lives.

Sure, any left-winger operates on what I would consider to be bad political philosophy. But it really annoys me when people take anyone they

disagree with politically and label them as "evil."

Edited by Capitalism Forever
Profanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FDR and Carter didn't send people to concentration camps.

Just noticed this. Yes he did...he just didn't throw them into ovens in the process.

Even so...I don't like having to defend wannabe dictators like FDR and incompetent morons like Carter, but to suggest that either of these men

(or Obama) are anywhere close to being as bad as Adolf mother****ing Hitler is absurd beyond belief. It is no better than people who compare

Bush to Hitler. It's ridiculous. It's absurd. It's infantile. It's alarmist. Anyone who genuinely makes that comparison loses my respect as a

human being. If you made it once, I could have written it off as letting your emotions get the best of you. But when you make such statements

twice, I am forced to conclude that you are either clueless, immature, or just plain not that bright.

In the immortal words of Billy Madison:

What you have just said...is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response did you

come anywhere close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I

award you no points...and may God have mercy on your soul.

Edited by Capitalism Forever
Profanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What? He ranks right up there with Carter, Hitler, FDR, and Stalin. What planet are you living on?

He's on earth, where are you?

So called 'Objectivists' that make these types of statements are an impediment toward serious acceptance of the movement as even coherent, much less intellectual.

Edited by adrock3215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just noticed this. Yes he did...he just didn't throw them into ovens in the process.

Even so...I don't like having to defend wannabe dictators like FDR and incompetent morons like Carter, but to suggest that either of these men

(or Obama) are anywhere close to being as bad as Adolf motherfucking Hitler is absurd beyond belief. It is no better than people who compare

Bush to Hitler. It's ridiculous. It's absurd. It's infantile. It's alarmist. Anyone who genuinely makes that comparison loses my respect as a

human being. If you made it once, I could have written it off as letting your emotions get the best of you. But when you make such statements

twice, I am forced to conclude that you are either clueless, immature, or just plain not that bright.

In the immortal words of Billy Madison:

What you have just said...is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response did you

come anywhere close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I

award you no points...and may God have mercy on your soul.

I don't know EC well enough to know if all the ad hominems above are accurate or not. I would say, even though, that it does a poor job of making your case to attack his fallacies(hyperbole/package dealing) with a fallacy of your own.

I am curious as to the exact nature of the disagreement, though. My hope is that Obama will be more like a Lenin then a Stalin, but only time will tell. It is a thread about prediction, after all, and we are living in unprecedented times, economically. How he responds is yet to be seen. What we do know is that he espouses only communist, socialist, and fascist ideologies("share the wealth") as well as methodologies(forced youth service camps); That he has a rabidly devout following(OBAMA!OBAMA!). That he is not above using strong arm tactics to accomplish his goals(ACORN bank runs, "truth squads"); That he is in an immense hurry to get into power(as in "office of the president elect"); That he is taking the reigns during a time of emergency(which he had a large hand in creating); that we are on the brink of run away inflation, that politically the world is unstable, that morally in this country we have a vacuum waiting to be filled by a potent enough ideology, that the populace is increasingly less educated thanks to our fine public school system and therefore more susceptible to emotionalism(as witnessed in the last election)...the similarities run through and through.

So I am wondering if the similarities between his rise to power and Hitler's are hard to see for you or is it only because he has not acted in the capacity of king, yet, that makes ec's belief so hard to even consider?

Without exaggeration, FDR is mainly responsible for the fact that around 1/2 of every working American's life has been spent in involuntary servitude for the last 70 years. It might not seem as dramatic as getting shot or baked and does not wear on our internal, moral sentiments, as much, but the indirectness of the action's effects does not diminish the cost. The majority of American's discretionary income and savings is wholly sapped by taxes and inflation, respectively . So how many have died unnecessarily and prematurely due to a lack of funds for medical procedures? Or better yet, how many, I'm gonna a say millions, have died due to the cost and time delay of bringing drugs to market because of the FDA? Include in this consideration all of the drugs which would be researched but are not because the $80 million FDA price tag does not make it marketable for the 6000 people who happen to suffer from some disorder or disease. Then take a stab at the damage done, physically, economically, and socially by every other government program and law, from banning DDT to osha regulations. The cost is impossible to estimate by it's very size which makes thinking in principle very valuable.

See, for me, the immediacy of the damage caused by an evil philosophy(which Obama does hold beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt) is irrelevant, which makes the comparison perfectly valid to my mind. The simplified principles are that he demands our sacrifice, more then we have had taken already, and is willing to act in order to acquire it. He does this without blushing and with complete moral justification, as accepted by the majority of Americans. The only real question is how much capacity does he have to enforce his power grabbing and planned CHANGEs(increased socialism).

So the real question probably boils down to the state of the American sense of life. How much will we allow? My estimation is that it is lower then it's ever been and will continue sinking as each new throat gripping regulation and country bankrupting bailout is heaped on our shoulders.

My post is getting a little longer then I intended, so Ill stop, but your comments reminded me of people who say, "they don't use guns to collect taxes. Why do you exaggerate like that?" That disconnect between ideology and concrete effect always bothers me. I reject the notion that it is impolite to call a spade a spade. I reject the notion that calling someone who espouses only socialist principles, a socialist is extreme or impolite. So does he share the same belief structure as Hitler? Except for having a preference for blond hair and blue eyes, it sure seems like it from where I sit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great response, aequalsa. You have to know about Moose, though, that he has responded with similar consternation to savages being called savages, and also when I subsequently characterized him as a liberal progressive. Given this history, that Billy Madison quote is the least to be expected from him when he sees the word "evil."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My hope is that Obama will be more like a Lenin then a Stalin

AequalsA--

It's a common misconception that Lenin was somehow a Bolshevik who was more moderate than Stalin. (Usually this is pushed by some leftist who is trying to claim that Stalin somehow corrupted the noble thing Lenin started--I know that evaluation of Lenin is not shared by you but apparently at least part of the premise has "got" you.)

Lenin was really just as bad as Stalin; the only difference was Lenin only had full control of Russia after 1921 and at about that time he had a stroke, so he didn't have a chance to "go Ivan the Terrible" like Stalin did. Nevertheless, he was not at all above wholesale murder techniques like loading tens of thousands of people onto barges, floating them out into Lake Ladoga and sinking the barges. Also during the Russian civil war, areas that rose up and were subsequently subdued endured slaughter. It was a bad idea to surrender to his forces. He essentially terrorized Russia into submission during the four years following his coup d'etat in October 1917. (Source for the specifics mentioned above: my recollections of things recounted in Russia under the New Regime by Richard Pipes.)

************

As far as the main theme of this thread, I find a lot of things about Obama and his cult-like following, particularly the propensity to try to suppress opposition speech (the threats to impose the "fairness doctrine", people researching Joe the Plumber because he had the audacity to ask The Chosen One an awkward question, etc.) very disturbing. And we've all seen instances of people becoming unhinged and making threats at any criticism of Obama.

It remains to be seen, however, whether Obama will exploit this sort of slavish following to attempt to impose a dicatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great response, aequalsa. You have to know about Moose, though, that he has responded with similar consternation to savages being called savages, and also when I subsequently characterized him as a liberal progressive. Given this history, that Billy Madison quote is the least to be expected from him when he sees the word "evil."

Dude, give me a break. It's a stretch to call me a liberal progressive because I think your use of the word "savage" is a lame attempt to assert

your own superiority over a bunch of people who are in no position to even comprehend what modern society offers. By that standard, most

people are "liberal progressives," because very few people still think that is an acceptable word to use when describing primitive societies. I

am easily the most right-wing person in my work place. I frequently get in arguments with people where I am the only person advocating laissez-

faire capitalism and defending the objective superiority of western civilization. If that makes me a liberal progressive...guilty as charged.

And another thing...how exactly did you expect me to respond to EC's infantile post that equates Obama with 2 of the worst dictators in world history?

Did you expect me to refute his evidence? Oh that's right, he didn't offer any. He made posts that referred to Obama as one of the most evil men

who has ever lived, then another that compared his alleged "evil" to the evil of 2 men who systematically slaughtered millions of people. I didn't feel

the need to offer evidence in the other direction because, not only did he not offer anything for me to refute, but because that comparison should be

so obviously absurd that it doesn't merit any counterargument.

I will now respond to A=A's post.

Edited by Moose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These threads about Obama contain such detailed argumentation and such precision of thought, that they render the rest of the threads pale by comparison.

I detect a slight amount of sarcasm :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know EC well enough to know if all the ad hominems above are accurate or not. I would say, even though, that it does a poor job of making your case to attack his fallacies(hyperbole/package dealing) with a fallacy of your own.

An ad hominem attack is one in which you say "you're wrong because you're stupid" not "you're stupid because your position makes no sense." While I didn't call EC stupid (though I suggested it as a possible explanation), it wouldn't necessarily be an ad hominem to do so. I confess that that post of mine was a bit immature and for that I apologize. It just irritates the hell out of me when people post stuff like that. I'm sure that someone will now accuse me of being a "liberal progressive" for it, but whatever. I equally oppose it when people make statements like that about George Bush (and we know there is no shortage of those). But that doesn't make me a religious conservative.

I am curious as to the exact nature of the disagreement, though. My hope is that Obama will be more like a Lenin then a Stalin, but only time will tell. It is a thread about prediction, after all, and we are living in unprecedented times, economically. How he responds is yet to be seen.

EXACTLY. If Obama responds by nationalizing all the private enterprise in this country and then herding his political opponents into death camps, I'll admit that EC might have had a point. But I'd say it's pretty damn unlikely (bordering on inconceivable) that Obama will do either of those things. Sure he'll redistribute wealth and maybe continue the current trend of bailouts (which definitely smells like nationalization), but you're not going to see the government suddenly take control of Walmart and Microsoft on his watch.

What we do know is that he espouses only communist, socialist, and fascist ideologies("share the wealth") as well as methodologies(forced youth service camps)

Socialist, yes. Fascist, somewhat. Communist...don't know about that one. Haven't heard him advocating the abolition of private property. Yeah, yeah, he studied under a Marxist in college. So did Leonard Peikoff, if I'm not mistaken.

That he has a rabidly devout following(OBAMA!OBAMA!).

No argument here. As I mentioned, I have been equally critical of people who treat this man like the second coming of Christ. And there is no shortage of them. I live in Washington DC, so I witnessed the celebrations first-hand.

That he is not above using strong arm tactics to accomplish his goals(ACORN bank runs, "truth squads");

Supporting ACORN doesn't mean he was in on their scheme to register all sorts of illegitimate Democrat voters. If you have a reasonable cause to believe that he knew about that scheme, then I'll admit that he uses strong-arm tactics. Nothing I've seen has suggested that he does.

That he is in an immense hurry to get into power(as in "office of the president elect");

Agreed...especially since he isn't even the president-elect yet.

That he is taking the reigns during a time of emergency(which he had a large hand in creating);

How did he have a large hand in creating this emergency? The issues we're dealing with now have been building up for years.

that we are on the brink of run away inflation, that politically the world is unstable, that morally in this country we have a vacuum waiting to be filled by a potent enough ideology, that the populace is increasingly less educated thanks to our fine public school system and therefore more susceptible to emotionalism(as witnessed in the last election)...the similarities run through and through.

I don't disagree here, but none of this was caused by Obama. He has the potential to make all these situations worse, but he didn't create them, and the fact that he is taking over during a time of crisis is not cause to compare him to Hitler. At most, the only comparison there is the circumstances under which they were elected. But there have been plenty of leaders elected during times of crisis, and they don't all turn out to be as bad as Hitler.

So I am wondering if the similarities between his rise to power and Hitler's are hard to see for you or is it only because he has not acted in the capacity of king, yet, that makes ec's belief so hard to even consider?

You can pick any two heads of state from any country in world history and find that there are similarities in their rise to power. Yes, there are similarities. The man is practically worshipped by throngs of followers. People are fed up with the current situation. There are also dissimilarities. To my knowledge, Obama never staged a coup where he tried to overthrow the US government, followed by spending some time in prison before suddenly being appointed Chancellor of the United States. Nor has he assassinated political opponents.

Without exaggeration, FDR is mainly responsible for the fact that around 1/2 of every working American's life has been spent in involuntary servitude for the last 70 years. It might not seem as dramatic as getting shot or baked and does not wear on our internal, moral sentiments, as much, but the indirectness of the action's effects does not diminish the cost. The majority of American's discretionary income and savings is wholly sapped by taxes and inflation, respectively . So how many have died unnecessarily and prematurely due to a lack of funds for medical procedures? Or better yet, how many, I'm gonna a say millions, have died due to the cost and time delay of bringing drugs to market because of the FDA? Include in this consideration all of the drugs which would be researched but are not because the $80 million FDA price tag does not make it marketable for the 6000 people who happen to suffer from some disorder or disease. Then take a stab at the damage done, physically, economically, and socially by every other government program and law, from banning DDT to osha regulations. The cost is impossible to estimate by it's very size which makes thinking in principle very valuable.

I won't argue. FDR is debatable. I personally don't think he belongs on the same plane as Hitler and Stalin, but there's a reasonable argument there. I mean, no one else that I know would think it's even remotely reasonable since he is generally hailed as one of the greatest presidents of all time. But I absolutely hate him and think he did great harm to this country. So, while I disagree that he's as bad as Hitler and Stalin, I'll let it pass because I admit that he was very, very bad. I'll stick to Carter and Obama.

See, for me, the immediacy of the damage caused by an evil philosophy(which Obama does hold beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt) is irrelevant, which makes the comparison perfectly valid to my mind. The simplified principles are that he demands our sacrifice, more then we have had taken already, and is willing to act in order to acquire it. He does this without blushing and with complete moral justification, as accepted by the majority of Americans. The only real question is how much capacity does he have to enforce his power grabbing and planned CHANGEs(increased socialism).

I can agree to this. The difference comes in what you and I define as "evil." To me, evil is all about intent. If it is your intent to exterminate the Jews so that the Aryan race can be the master of Europe, then I'd say you're one evil son of a bitch. There's simply no way you can couch Hitler's goals in language that doesn't imply malice towards large numbers of people. The same cannot be said about Obama. I disagree with his politics but, ultimately, his goal is to improve the quality of life for Americans. Needless to say, I don't think his ideology will get the job done. Immoral and irrational, sure. Evil...not willing to go there.

And you can argue that his motivation is "hatred of the rich," but I will respectfully disagree. I'm not fond of trying to peg motivations on other people, because I can't read their minds. Are there socialists who are motivated by hatred for the rich? Yeah, I imagine there are quite a few. It doesn't mean that all of them are. Some of them genuinely think it is the best way to promote human happiness. I think they are wrong, misguided, etc., but I'm not going to call them evil unless they really are motivated by hatred. Some people say that pro-lifers are motivated by a desire for control over the lives of women. Well, as a former hardcore pro-lifer, I can assure you that this was not my motivation.

So the real question probably boils down to the state of the American sense of life. How much will we allow? My estimation is that it is lower then it's ever been and will continue sinking as each new throat gripping regulation and country bankrupting bailout is heaped on our shoulders.

I agree. But, once again, this wasn't caused by Obama. He might make it worse. But he didn't start it.

My post is getting a little longer then I intended, so Ill stop, but your comments reminded me of people who say, "they don't use guns to collect taxes. Why do you exaggerate like that?" That disconnect between ideology and concrete effect always bothers me. I reject the notion that it is impolite to call a spade a spade. I reject the notion that calling someone who espouses only socialist principles, a socialist is extreme or impolite. So does he share the same belief structure as Hitler? Except for having a preference for blond hair and blue eyes, it sure seems like it from where I sit.

The same belief structure? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but it doesn't sound as though you're comparing the evilness of the actual "beliefs." Hitler's beliefs and ideologies were unquestionably (to me, anyway) more evil than anything Obama has espoused. I take your point that the immediate bad effects aren't the only things that matter, because you have to look at all of history. So is it conceivable that Obama's policies will eventually result in millions of deaths? Sure, given enough time. But Hitler was only in power for 9 years, and after war, Germany was successfully de-Nazified. Our slow but steady sink towards socialism isn't going to end after Obama leaves office, virtually guaranteeing that we won't be "de-socialistized," but, at worst, he is just continuing and perhaps accelerating a trend that was already there. In any given length of time, Hitler's policies would result in immeasurably more human misery and death than Obama's.

Obama's policies may very well make us look more like the left-leaning countries of Europe. But even in those countries, life is pretty damn good, all things considered. Spain, led by a socialist government, is still one of the freer countries that has existed throughout all of history, as is every country in western Europe. I don't want us to take the European road. But I'd rather spend the rest of my life under a European-style socialist government than spend one second in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. I suspect you would as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side-note.

While I disagree with you and will probably disagree to your next response, you at least posted your reasoning for your opinion about Obama. EC didn't. He just asserted that Obama is one of the most evil men in history. So, while I disagree, I would never feel the need to call you infantile and immature. EC made reactionary posts, then failed to offer a defense of his statements when given the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I confess that that post of mine was a bit immature and for that I apologize.

Good enough for the girls I date. :lol:

but you're not going to see the government suddenly take control of Walmart and Microsoft on his watch.

I don't know...we are in the middle of a take over of the banking and auto industry. Retail can't be that far off.

Socialist, yes. Fascist, somewhat. Communist...don't know about that one. Haven't heard him advocating the abolition of private property. Yeah, yeah, he studied under a Marxist in college. So did Leonard Peikoff, if I'm not mistaken.

In addition to his share the wealth notion he has stated explicitly that he is opposed to the constitutional protection of negative liberties. That would include property, of course.

Supporting ACORN doesn't mean he was in on their scheme to register all sorts of illegitimate Democrat voters. If you have a reasonable cause to believe that he knew about that scheme, then I'll admit that he uses strong-arm tactics. Nothing I've seen has suggested that he does.

I would think that being a member of an organization, working as their lawyer and training their leaders would make it more likely then not that he was aware of their activities and processes. Including seizing empty houses and encouraging homeless to move in and squat as well as the well known race baiting sit ins, inside banks to "encourage" more lax standards for minorities.

How did he have a large hand in creating this emergency? The issues we're dealing with now have been building up for years.

Strong support of the organization responsible for making large numbers of high risk people get loans which they later defaulted on?

I don't disagree here, but none of this was caused by Obama. He has the potential to make all these situations worse, but he didn't create them, and the fact that he is taking over during a time of crisis is not cause to compare him to Hitler. At most, the only comparison there is the circumstances under which they were elected. But there have been plenty of leaders elected during times of crisis, and they don't all turn out to be as bad as Hitler.

Right, but what I am trying to argue is that he has not only the right mindset, but also the right circumstance to grow government power in an unprecedented way.

You can pick any two heads of state from any country in world history and find that there are similarities in their rise to power. Yes, there are similarities. The man is practically worshipped by throngs of followers. People are fed up with the current situation. There are also dissimilarities. To my knowledge, Obama never staged a coup where he tried to overthrow the US government, followed by spending some time in prison before suddenly being appointed Chancellor of the United States. Nor has he assassinated political opponents.

I didn't say they were identical. Just that the important parts were there.

I'll stick to Carter and Obama.

Not as bad as FDR certainly, but responsible for some pretty horrific economic conditions which have take 30 years to recreate.

To me, evil is all about intent.

I do not view someone's intent as a useful way to evaluate. It is helpful with regard to yoursef, and perhaps people close to you, but at the distance most of us sit from obama it can only be conjecture. What matters in evaluation to me at the political level are words and especially actions. From what I can tell Hitler had good intentions too. I can't anymore say that I am opposed to purity than I am opposed to the environment. Both belief systems left unchecked lead to misery and death though. That I can evaluate.

Hitler's policies would result in immeasurably more human misery and death than Obama's.

Predicting again, but that isn't necessarily true. Great fast evils come and go fairly quickly. Slow creeping evils that indoctrinate people slowly(like religion in the dark ages) cause incalculable damage. I am more frightened of that then anything Hitler could do.

Obama's policies may very well make us look more like the left-leaning countries of Europe. But even in those countries, life is pretty damn good, all things considered. Spain, led by a socialist government, is still one of the freer countries that has existed throughout all of history, as is every country in western Europe. I don't want us to take the European road. But I'd rather spend the rest of my life under a European-style socialist government than spend one second in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. I suspect you would as well.

You can chaulk this up to a difference in tastes, but I'd rather have a bullet to the head then a long slow cancerous death that Europe is heading for. Especially when the metaphorical bullet is something which can be recovered from in a relatively short amount of time.

As a side-note.

So, while I disagree, I would never feel the need to call you infantile and immature.

Well Good! I don't feel the need just yet to call you a "liberal progressive" either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good enough for the girls I date. :lol:

I wish I could say the same but I'm still technically married, so most girls aren't too thrilled about the idea of dating me.

I don't know...we are in the middle of a take over of the banking and auto industry. Retail can't be that far off.

And the people of this country are opposed to both by a ratio of about 60% to 40%. You think it's bad now, wait until they hear that the government is going to take over grocery chains.

In addition to his share the wealth notion he has stated explicitly that he is opposed to the constitutional protection of negative liberties. That would include property, of course.

Forgive my lack of edumacation, but what does "negative liberty" mean?

I would think that being a member of an organization, working as their lawyer and training their leaders would make it more likely then not that he was aware of their activities and processes. Including seizing empty houses and encouraging homeless to move in and squat as well as the well known race baiting sit ins, inside banks to "encourage" more lax standards for minorities.

I think that's a big assumption. That's like saying that Donald Rumsfeld was involved with Abu Ghraib. A scheme like the one ACORN was doing with regards to registering dead Democrats and Mickey Mouse is not likely the kind of order that's going to come down from the top levels of the organization...probably just some low to mid-level wanker organizer. As for the homeless stuff, race-baiting, etc., yeah it's all crap, but it's not even remotely related to strong-arming voters.

Strong support of the organization responsible for making large numbers of high risk people get loans which they later defaulted on?

I'm a strong supporter of Texas A&M football, but we just had our worst season in 3 decades. In all seriousness though, I know Obama is more influential in politics than I am in college sports, but this is still an example of a trend that Obama could not possibly have started. Let's not forget that he was just a state senator barely 4 years ago.

Right, but what I am trying to argue is that he has not only the right mindset, but also the right circumstance to grow government power in an unprecedented way.

I'm not usually the type of person who will defend the intelligence of the American people, because I tend to think they're a bunch of sheep, but here it goes...I don't think we'll put up with it for long. The situation we're in is not nearly as bad as the situation of Weimar Germany, and Obama has decidedly less support than Hitler did. You forget that Obama only won with 52%, or thereabouts. I don't remember exactly how much the Nazis had, but I'm pretty sure it was way more than that. This country is still right-leaning.

After Nixon resigned, the American people were so fed up with Republicans, that they elected an incompetent Democrat to take Ford's place. Fortunately, they realized their mistake pretty quickly. I expect Obama will win a second term, but I don't think people in this country lean nearly far enough to the left to allow him to accomplish so much of what the hellfire preachers are expecting him to do.

I didn't say they were identical. Just that the important parts were there.

Some of the important parts, sure...but others are missing.

Not as bad as FDR certainly, but responsible for some pretty horrific economic conditions which have take 30 years to recreate.

Agreed.

I do not view someone's intent as a useful way to evaluate. It is helpful with regard to yoursef, and perhaps people close to you, but at the distance most of us sit from obama it can only be conjecture. What matters in evaluation to me at the political level are words and especially actions. From what I can tell Hitler had good intentions too. I can't anymore say that I am opposed to purity than I am opposed to the environment. Both belief systems left unchecked lead to misery and death though. That I can evaluate.

I like to assume the best about people. When someone espouses what I consider to be a bad political ideology, I generally assume that they came by their mistakes honestly. There are some politicians who are so obviously dishonest that you can see through the facade. Maybe Obama really is motivated by power-lust and hatred of the rich. I just haven't heard anything from him that leads me to think that. I think he is motivated by a mistaken political ideology, but that it really is his goal to improve the lives of Americans.

And that's a pretty lame comparison to Hitler. There's simply no way you can claim that Hitler's goal was the well-being of Germans. Forgetting the fact that he committed genocide against many people living in Germany, he also tried to take the entire country down with him, when he realized that war was almost over.

Predicting again, but that isn't necessarily true. Great fast evils come and go fairly quickly. Slow creeping evils that indoctrinate people slowly(like religion in the dark ages) cause incalculable damage. I am more frightened of that then anything Hitler could do.

While I see your point, I'm just not convinced that this has anything to do with Obama. This slow creeping evil has been coming for a while. By this logic, you can compare every president of the last half century to Hitler, with the possible exceptions of Eisenhower and Reagan.

You can chaulk this up to a difference in tastes, but I'd rather have a bullet to the head then a long slow cancerous death that Europe is heading for. Especially when the metaphorical bullet is something which can be recovered from in a relatively short amount of time.

Europe still hasn't recovered from WWII. My personal theory is that the reason Europeans tend to be so pacifistic is because, unlike us, they know how bad war can get. And they've decided that they never want to see it again. The problem is that they're so averse to war, that eventually it will be thrust on them and they won't be able to do anything about it. It's like the Magic Bullet Theory, applied to history. The bullet got them once, but it's gonna turn around and get them again. Next time, they might not be so lucky.

I'll take cancer over that. At least it lets me live a decent life for a long time. Even if it steadily decreases in quality, it's better than having to worry about a sudden annihilation.

Well Good! I don't feel the need just yet to call you a "liberal progressive" either.

Good...I hope it doesn't change your mind that I'm going to San Francisco this weekend.

Edited by Moose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know...we are in the middle of a take over of the banking and auto industry. Retail can't be that far off.

As far as I know, it's already happening. Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey are planning bail-outs of Boscovs.

...I don't think we'll put up with it for long. ...This country is still right-leaning.

I'll respectfully disagree with this. This may have been true, even somewhat recently. But decades of public schooling and bad ideologies perpetuated by religion/politics have really taken their toll on this country. This is truly the age of the unproductive and unprincipled, which is why Obama was so popular. He is their champion. Concepts such as personal responsibility, freedom to own property, freedom of speech, and personal, individual liberties are being replaced by the needs of the collective. We are simply not a country of rugged, self-sufficent, hard-working people anymore.

I like to assume the best about people. When someone espouses what I consider to be a bad political ideology, I generally assume that they came by their mistakes honestly. There are some politicians who are so obviously dishonest that you can see through the facade. Maybe Obama really is motivated by power-lust and hatred of the rich. I just haven't heard anything from him that leads me to think that. I think he is motivated by a mistaken political ideology, but that it really is his goal to improve the lives of Americans.

I don't want to get into a big thing here, but motive is really of no consequence when you consider the result. Say a man has a starving child, so he murders another man and steals his food. To him, it's a noble cause, right? Is this really any different than the same man murdering someone because he "hates him"? Either way... someone is dead. Evil is evil. Being ignorant of your own evil tendencies does not somehow justify or excuse them, especially if you have "good intentions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to get into a big thing here, but motive is really of no consequence when you consider the result. Say a man has a starving child, so he murders another man and steals his food. To him, it's a noble cause, right? Is this really any different than the same man murdering someone because he "hates him"? Either way... someone is dead. Evil is evil. Being ignorant of your own evil tendencies does not somehow justify or excuse them, especially if you have "good intentions."

Maybe it's a fine line, but there's no way to kill a man--no matter your other motives--without knowing that you're acting in malice towards

someone. Many socialists actually believe they are doing everyone a favor by redistributing wealth, including the people they take it from.

That doesn't make it excusable, but I think it makes them less guilty than people who pursue socialist policies either as a result of power-lust or

out of a desire to actually punish the rich.

Don't forget to wear flowers in your hair...

All across the nation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These threads about Obama contain such detailed argumentation and such precision of thought, that they render the rest of the threads pale by comparison.

Hmm, and Objectivism isn't taken seriously in the academic world....I wonder why... :lol:

Perhaps part of the reason is because some self-proclaimed Objectivists themselves see it as primarily a political theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I pretty much agree with almost everything Moose said in this thread. I wanted to add a minor point about the fervor of some of Obama's supporters, and the comparisons to Hitler.

I think I stated earlier in a another thread that I don't like the Obama-Hitler comparisons. But I don't like the "Bush=Hitler" chanting either. Because the criteria that people apply to make the judgment can be applied to pretty much any politician or charismatic leader. For instance, look at Ron Paul. He has a more devoted following then Barack Obama in my opinion. Does that make Ron Paul a Hitler? Reagen was very charismatic and popular, and Bush had some pretty weird border-line worshipers as well. So are they all Hitlers? I've noticed every party/candidate has some really devoted fan base. Every political rally I've been to or seen has attracted nut jobs from all over. I don't understand why when it's Obama then all the sudden it makes him Zombie-Hitler-in-disguise and back with a vengeance*

Everyone calls everyone** they disagree with a Nazi nowadays. It's becoming a really meaningless comparison. That's why I started reading Mein Kempf because I'd actually like to understand what Adolf stood for and why. I don't want to be a man who thinks, "I don't like that politician therefore he is Hitler 2.0!"

It's not that Nazi/Hitler comparisons are always wrong. Just overused and becoming increasingly meaningless because of it.

*This is a thing I came up with on my own, it's called a "joke". I'm fully 100% aware that no one on this particular thread on the Internet has said this exact same and specific thing.

** This is a figure of speech meant to illustrate that there are lots of people who call other people Nazis. If you don't do such a thing thing it obviously doesn't apply to you, so please don't throw a fit about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe it's a fine line, but there's no way to kill a man--no matter your other motives--without knowing that you're acting in malice towards

someone. Many socialists actually believe they are doing everyone a favor by redistributing wealth, including the people they take it from.

That doesn't make it excusable, but I think it makes them less guilty than people who pursue socialist policies either as a result of power-lust or

out of a desire to actually punish the rich.

I'm not going to argue further, as it's a discussion for another thread. And I can see why you make the distinction between someone awful like Hitler and other politicians. Just keep in mind though, that aside from a few sick people like Jeffrey Dahmer, I don't think any individual truly thinks that they are evil or that their own intentions are malicious, no matter how misguided or illogical they are. I think the point that aequalsa was trying to make was regardless of motive, Obama *could be* responsible for human suffering on the scale of Hitler.

Absurd? Maybe. We just don't know yet, which is why we're predicting. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgive my lack of edumacation, but what does "negative liberty" mean?

Sure. Soon as I get my apple. :angry:

Short version is that negative liberties are the rights to life liberty and property. Things that require only that you not do something to someone else. Positive liberties are the sort that Marx supported. "Freedom from hunger," "freedom from uncomfortable shoes," etc. Essentially these so called positive liberties, are entitlements granted to some at the expense of another.

http://www.wikio.com/video/545578?start=75...t=15&sort=0

I think that's a big assumption. That's like saying that Donald Rumsfeld was involved with Abu Ghraib.

I don't think it's the same at all. First, the distance from top to bottom is much greater when comparing the Sec. Of Def to a couple privates and the trainer in ACORN to the leaders of the organization. Unlike Abu Ghraib, this was a normal part of their operating procedure.

I'm not usually the type of person who will defend the intelligence of the American people, because I tend to think they're a bunch of sheep, but here it goes...I don't think we'll put up with it for long. The situation we're in is not nearly as bad as the situation of Weimar Germany, and Obama has decidedly less support than Hitler did. You forget that Obama only won with 52%, or thereabouts. I don't remember exactly how much the Nazis had, but I'm pretty sure it was way more than that. This country is still right-leaning.

66% of people below 30 voted for him. Hopefully it's just youthful irrationality, but I don't think so. I think it's an indicator of direction. Also the fact that someone as leftist as he is even stands a chance of being elected is a pretty clear indicator to me, that the time they are a changin. Which is really my deepest concern. Not only is he horrible, but he is in my estimation a gateway socialist. I hope, but doubt, that the economy remains horrible for the next 4-8 years. At least then there might be a pendulum swing the other direction. The more likely scenario is he inflates our currency so much that it feels better for a little while.

Some of the important parts, sure...but others are missing.

I would say that the essential parts are mostly there.

I like to assume the best about people. When someone espouses what I consider to be a bad political ideology, I generally assume that they came by their mistakes honestly. There are some politicians who are so obviously dishonest that you can see through the facade. Maybe Obama really is motivated by power-lust and hatred of the rich. I just haven't heard anything from him that leads me to think that. I think he is motivated by a mistaken political ideology, but that it really is his goal to improve the lives of Americans.

I do too. I just don't put politicians in that same genus(people). I am not as forgiving with 47 year olds. I think you can be 20 and possess a poor political outlook honestly. If you are 47 not so much without being completely uneducated. And someone who has studied and lived it all their life? Forget about it. There is no "hey...never thought of it like that," going on. This man has heard the arguments for liberty and free markets and rejected them outright, through some combination of evasion and pursued ignorance.

And that's a pretty lame comparison to Hitler. There's simply no way you can claim that Hitler's goal was the well-being of Germans. Forgetting the fact that he committed genocide against many people living in Germany, he also tried to take the entire country down with him, when he realized that war was almost over.

My point was that this concept of "good intentions" is too broad to be meaningful. I read Mein Kampf. The man actually believed the world would be better off without Jews and with Germany in charge of everything. He never claimed to want to "watch the world burn," but his policies were effective to that end. I don't regard the "good intentioned" concept as useful. It is too broad. It defines evil out of existence because everyone is the hero in their own story.

While I see your point, I'm just not convinced that this has anything to do with Obama. This slow creeping evil has been coming for a while. By this logic, you can compare every president of the last half century to Hitler, with the possible exceptions of Eisenhower and Reagan.

There is a difference in kind between the eisenhower's and carter's of the world and the FDR's and, what I think will be the BHO's. Only time will tell of course, but I think he's a leaper not a creeper, as socialism goes.

I'll take cancer over that. At least it lets me live a decent life for a long time. Even if it steadily decreases in quality, it's better than having to worry about a sudden annihilation.

It really doesn't. Slow slides into ideology only ensures that it lasts for 100 generations instead of 3.

Share this post


Link to post
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...