Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Last night (August 28, 2012) New Jersey governor Chris Christie gave the Keynote Address to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.

Gov. Christie didn't mention or praise: freedom, liberty, individual rights, justice, capitalism, libertarianism, laissez-faire, free enterprise, or free trade. So too: Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, or Friedrich Hayek.

He also didn't mention or condemn: slavery, tyranny, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, communism, socialism, fascism, welfare statism, Big Gov't, or Big Brother. So too: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, Saul Alinsky, Joseph Stiglitz, or Paul Krugman.

He did, however, praise his mother for saying people have to "choose between being loved and being respected." And he noted that you the voter should "fight for your principles." His best line was about the need for America to "cut federal spending and reduce the size of gov't."

But Christie also praised New Jerseyians who "shared in the sacrifice"; and he condemned those who were "selfish," and believed in "every man for himself," and who think "self-interest will always trump common sense."

What an advocate of self-sacrifice, and what enemy of political liberty! People who vote for Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan and the Republicans this year are truly attackers of freedom and destroyers of America!

Edited by Wotan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can take any Obama speech, reach the same conclusion, and make the same claim that supporting Obama is an assault on freedom.

Ergo, I'm still voting to fire Obama.

I'm pretty sure "fire Obama" isn't on the ballot. If you are voting for Romney, you should write that. And then, you should think about whether that "ergo" belongs where you put it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure "fire Obama" isn't on the ballot. If you are voting for Romney, you should write that. And then, you should think about whether that "ergo" belongs where you put it or not.

If you need it spelled out then yes, I’ll likely vote for Mittens. My vote is not however based on any approval of Romney as it is a need to remove Obama as the great evil. Thus, I say I’m firing Obama since that is what my vote amounts too. Like I said in the other thread, this is no different then the Nixon and McGovern election in my mind. I’m also firing Senator Stabenow as well for supporting Obamacare (amongst other tragedies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m also firing Senator Stabenow as well for supporting Obamacare (amongst other tragedies).

What about the guy who implemented Obamacare in his state before there was Obamacare, Mitt Romney?

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, can somebody explain to me where the Great Satan that is BO gets this reputation? Personally I see him as middle-of-the-road and implementing policy approximately like any other candidate in that position would in--from either party.

Can we get beyond the narrative and into specifics? What specifically has Obama done that McCain would not have done and vice-versa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Christie also praised New Jerseyians who "shared in the sacrifice"; and he condemned those who were "selfish," and believed in "every man for himself," and who think "self-interest will always trump common sense."

What an advocate of self-sacrifice, and what enemy of political liberty! People who vote for Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan and the Republicans this year are truly attackers of freedom and destroyers of America!

His root mistake is thinking that clinging to government benefits is a selfish course of action, or that refusing to vote oneself more benefits is "selfless." His vision of the selfish man is clearly someone who accumulates money at all costs, from all sources, rather than someone who refuses to use the government to transfer money from others to himself. The people that he called "selfish," i.e. citizens who would drive the country off the fiscal cliff in order to get their government check, are indeed condemnable; they're condemnable for not being properly selfish. His point was right, but his language was wrong, and that's not an uncommon mistake at all in America's confused ethical landscape. When he says we all need to "share in the sacrifice," what he was talking about was that we all need to stop begging the government for a check, and allow politicians to cut spending. He's right; we should do that, but it won't be a sacrifice.

ADDED ON EDIT: There's a fundamental difference between a politician asking citizens to "sacrifice" by giving up their government benefits, and a politician asking citizens to sacrifice by paying more of their own income to the government. Only in the second case is the person giving up something that actually belongs to them.

Edited by Dante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the guy who implemented Obamacare in his state before there was Obamacare, Mitt Romney?

If I was from Taxachusetts I would have voted to fire him too. My rights were violated by Obama and as such he gets my vote to get kicked off the island.

Further, with Romney I have a chance of getting some of this appealed. There is zero chance of it happening under Obama. If Romney acts like he did in Taxachussets I’ll likely vote to fire him too, well unless the Democrats toss up another McGovern in four years then we’ll see. Like I said it’s about fighting the greater evil at this point.

Edited by Spiral Architect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, can somebody explain to me where the Great Satan that is BO gets this reputation? Personally I see him as middle-of-the-road and implementing policy approximately like any other candidate in that position would in--from either party.

Can we get beyond the narrative and into specifics? What specifically has Obama done that McCain would not have done and vice-versa?

Obama is no moderate. That is his problem since he has gone ethically the wrong way.

Obamacare. McCain would have increased healthcare like Bush did for sure but I doubt I would be forced to purchase healthcare from a Government protected cartel. For the first time in history Americans are being forced to buy something agaisnt their will or face Government punishment.

Obama has rubberstamped more spending than every other President combined. That is way more than Bush Jr. and I have no reason to believe McCain would have done more than Bush.

Obama has not only rubberstamped Bush’s foreign policy, despite running against it, but increased it. McCain would have done this too but I have no reason to believe we would have invaded Libya or had botched it in the way Obama has.

Speaking of foreign policy, the only place he has not increased involvement is Israel. He has pretty much revoked moral support from them. McCain would have at least gotten that right.

“You didn’t build that”. Egalitarians live on a lower rung of hell then mystics.

Obama nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court, a woman so devoid of understanding the child-like principles of the Constitution she once argued (as an attorney for the Clinton Administration) before the same SC that freedom of speech should be “balanced against its social harm”. I’m sure McCain would have given us some moderate who has mixed principles but at least we would not have gotten some post-modern kook that thinks “social harm” trumps the First Amendment.

Do you think McCain would have blocked drilling in the Gulf of Mexico while supporting loans to Brazil so that Country could drill in the Atlantic? You can toss Solyndra in here as well.

Do I need to continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting for the Republicans is a serious crime. The Democrats too.

Christie's speech was pathetic. We need to ship his fat ass to North Korea. Lots of unselfishness and shared sacrifice there! :fool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get beyond the narrative and into specifics? What specifically has Obama done that McCain would not have done and vice-versa?

Issue of Difference/Better Politician

Don't Ask, Don't Tell/Obama

Fast and Furious/McCain

Healthcare/McCain (I doubt he would have gotten a law passed, but if he did I think it would not have been as bad. The Individual mandate probably would have survived legislation but died in the SCOTUS with two McCain appointees.)

Iran's Nuclear Program/McCain (He would have taken a more hands-free attitude on Israel)

New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation/McCain

Tombstone Water Dispute/McCain

Abortion/Obama (again, SCOTUS appointees)

Budgeting/McCain (He'd have passed one, or at least gotten one or more members of his own party to vote for his budget)

Taxes/McCain

Energy/McCain (He'd push for and fail to get carbon credits. He would not direct the EPA to expand the enforcement of regulations with the express purpose of "bankrupting the coal industry")

McCain wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiral -- Your post got hosed somehow. Resend.

Issue of Difference/Better Politician

Don't Ask, Don't Tell/Obama

Fast and Furious/McCain

Healthcare/McCain (I doubt he would have gotten a law passed, but if he did I think it would not have been as bad. The Individual mandate probably would have survived legislation but died in the SCOTUS with two McCain appointees.)

Iran's Nuclear Program/McCain (He would have taken a more hands-free attitude on Israel)

New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation/McCain

Tombstone Water Dispute/McCain

Abortion/Obama (again, SCOTUS appointees)

Budgeting/McCain (He'd have passed one, or at least gotten one or more members of his own party to vote for his budget)

Taxes/McCain

Energy/McCain (He'd push for and fail to get carbon credits. He would not direct the EPA to expand the enforcement of regulations with the express purpose of "bankrupting the coal industry")

McCain wins.

* You don't think McCain would have done FaF or some equivalent? Why? Sounds like a shenanigan either could have pulled.

* Healthcare: sounds like spitting hairs to me. Both are 1000% committed to socialized healthcare--and recall we had this all along before any "reform".

* Foreign policy in general -- rational people can disagree about this... here I don't find anything sinister about Obama on FP. I find there to be a lot of trade-offs in that area and I don't pretend to know all of the answers. The Republican gibberish that Obama "apologizes for America" or whatever is crap.

* I don't know much about the Black Panther thing (link?) -- but what the Repubs are doing with the "voter fraud" fraud is really awful and scary.

* The abortion issue is more important to me personally than all of the mere money issues as the ones about money are matters of degree whereas that issue is either/or.

* Taxes? Would McCain want to run the deficits necessary to cut taxes? Really?

* Energy: don't know much about that expansion, again, link?

Now, keep in mind I wasn't asking for a simple "list of differences" but rather that thing or things that makes Obama a drastically terrible Satan for whom anybody, including Satan, would be better. The entire list above (save the items I need to research more) seems like they are +/- 10%, not some sort of obvious choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, keep in mind I wasn't asking for a simple "list of differences" but rather that thing or things that makes Obama a drastically terrible Satan for whom anybody, including Satan, would be better. The entire list above (save the items I need to research more) seems like they are +/- 10%, not some sort of obvious choice.

You have two threads going on this subject, CrowEpistemologist, and you're displaying two entirely opposing points of view in them.

In this one, you're stating that you don't see any obvious difference between Obama and Republicans, in the other one, you are stating that Democrats are smart and logical and the Republicans are waging a war on Reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have two threads going on this subject, CrowEpistemologist, and you're displaying two entirely opposing points of view in them.

In this one, you're stating that you don't see any obvious difference between Obama and Republicans, in the other one, you are stating that Democrats are smart and logical and the Republicans are waging a war on Reason.

In this thread I'm asking people to explain why Obama is Satan. I guess my point above about comparing him to Repubs in this case is just to point out that he's middle-of-the-road and doesn't do anything unusual compared with other politicians.

In the other thread I was trying to say that these days the Demos represent the side of smart and logical and Repubs represent the side of the opposite.

The entire Repub convention was based on a misquote by the President. The implication is that it doesn't matter what people say at all anymore, what matters is what we felt you should have said based on our preconceived notions.

The Repubs here are breaking new ground in bringing our culture--and therefore our country--down to a new level of unreason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this thread I'm asking people to explain why Obama is Satan.

He's not Satan. There, your question's been answered. If all you're doing in this thread is asking that question, then you should be done here.

The entire Repub convention was based on a misquote by the President. The implication is that it doesn't matter what people say at all anymore, what matters is what we felt you should have said based on our preconceived notions.

Actually, the implication is that what matters is what he meant, and what he stands for. He is an advocate of big government, he is against individual rights, and he is looking to downplay the role private enterprise has in making the US prosperous. That's what he meant when he said "you didn't build that", that's what he means when he lies about the rich not paying more than their fair share in taxes, that's what he means when he attacks Wall Street.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you were asking a serious question, Crow. Typically, comparing someone to the devil is hyperbole. I'm not going to offer further replies to you on this matter until you concede that your question (in it's current form) is ridiculous, come down to earth, and show that you're willing to discuss a more relevant question.

Anyway, Wotan, I don't agree that a vote for a candidate is "support for evil" if there is indeed no viable alternative. I didn't vote for a president in 2008 because I thought leaving that section of my ballot blank made a bigger statement than voting Libertarian. I was willing to do so because I didn't think there was a significant difference between McCain and Obama in 2008. 3.5 years later I know I was wrong. I still may vote for Gary Johnson this time around, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the implication is that what matters is what he meant, and what he stands for.

This misquote is taking advantage of Obama's bad grammar in a sentence, while he was referring to quite clearly that things like roads were not built by the business who use them. To take any other viewpoint is to distort what Obama said, or to let your dislike for Obama turn into a bias to interpret everything Obama said as a great evil. I don't like how Obama worded his idea, but it's not really any different than a social contract belief that I'm sure Republicans agree with. Plus, it is true that if you run a pizzeria, you didn't built roads, so I'd even say "you didn't build that [the road], so you should pay for using the road". You pay for what you don't earn yourself.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This misquote is taking advantage of Obama's bad grammar in a sentence,...

I don't think it was about grammar. Obama was basically trying to say that we all owe each other -- and particularly the government -- a substantial part of any success we claim for ourselves. Obviously it is true in a sense. However, the philosophical idea here is the primacy of others. The political idea is the primacy of government over the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This misquote is taking advantage of Obama's bad grammar in a sentence, while he was referring to quite clearly that things like roads were not built by the business who use them. To take any other viewpoint is to distort what Obama said, or to let your dislike for Obama turn into a bias to interpret everything Obama said as a great evil. I don't like how Obama worded his idea, but it's not really any different than a social contract belief that I'm sure Republicans agree with. Plus, it is true that if you run a pizzeria, you didn't built roads, so I'd even say "you didn't build that [the road], so you should pay for using the road". You pay for what you don't earn yourself.

That's not what he was getting at. What he was getting at is that individual success would be impossible without government help. And the reason why he felt compelled to point that out is because he doesn't think individual businesses deserve the kind of credit his political opponents in the Tea Party grant them, for their success.

Furthermore, he is using the claim that individuals share credit for their success with the government, to justify a biased tax system which penalizes individual success.

And Republicans in fact DO NOT agree with that. Republicans believe that public roads, space exploration and other government programs are necessary and couldn't exist in a free market, and they use that belief to justify taxation for them. But there's a clear split with Liberals on the subject of who exactly should pay those taxes and why.

Unlike Obama, Republicans don't have an insatiable desire to drain the rich and semi-rich of their wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first place, the sentence "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" (source) is perfectly good grammar. "Business" is the antecedent of "that."

Obama, his admirers and their entire cultural tradition have been telling us since around the time of the French Revolution that they are smarter than everybody else. Consequently we're entitled to hold all of them to a very high standard of erudition. The just-a-slip excuse you propose might work for most people, but not for (in the words of Michael Beschloss, eminent academic historian) "probably the smartest guy ever to become president."

Second, it follows a bitchy, supercilious dismissal of entrepreneurs: "I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart... It must be because I worked harder than everybody else." It is immediately followed by a reiteration of the original claim: "Somebody else made that happen." This in turn is followed by a historical falsehood: "Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Third, the pro-Obama forces themselves dropped this defense after about a week, when they saw that the wider public didn't believe them.

Fourth, if all Obama meant was that a division of labor prevails, the point is too trivial to be worth stating. If he's as smart as claimed, he wouldn't have taken time to say that.

No alternative explanation will stand up. It was simple, overt malice.

Edited by Reidy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first place, the sentence "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" (source) is perfectly good grammar. "Business" is the antecedent of "that."

Just for the sake of clarity, I don't agree with this. I understand your point about the bad grammar, Eiuol, and I know that the "that" was meant to refer to the roads and whatnot he mentioned previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not Satan. There, your question's been answered. If all you're doing in this thread is asking that question, then you should be done here.

Actually, the implication is that what matters is what he meant, and what he stands for. He is an advocate of big government, he is against individual rights, and he is looking to downplay the role private enterprise has in making the US prosperous. That's what he meant when he said "you didn't build that", that's what he means when he lies about the rich not paying more than their fair share in taxes, that's what he means when he attacks Wall Street.

No, the implication is that individual achievement is helped when you have adequate infrastructure. The rest is fantasy fitting with a narrative used by the Republicans to somehow convince us that they are markedly different from the Demos even though they have the same exact premises (guides to their actual actions not campaign BS) in every important respect.

I suppose it's progress when one of the parties feels a need to pander to Objectivists, however...

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...