How is it that Kant was trying to refute Hume?

[Elle]

If Kant sets out to refute Hume, because he understands how dangerous Hume's "Nothing Exists" philosophy is, then why does he end up in such a mess?

More specifically, if Kant is setting out to establish and objective (and I mean this in the anti-subjective context, not in the Objectivism context) universe in which there is an absolute right or wrong answer to every question then how can he remove the "outcome" of an action from one's consideration of right or wrong?

This seems like as much a scientific blashphemy (or at least a logical fallacy) as Hume's causality and the lacking "nessecary connection" between cause and effect.

Perhaps my grasp on these two philosopher's ideas isn't solid enough, but both of their systems seem to invert on themselves. Am I headed in the right direction with this?

Anyone with a better grasp of this, I would be interested.

[Capitalism Forever]

If Kant sets out to refute Hume, because he understands how dangerous Hume's "Nothing Exists" philosophy is, then why does he end up in such a mess?

Because his goal is not to refute Hume but to rephrase Hume while pretending to refute him. He understands that Hume's "Nothing Exists" philosophy is too blatant to be taken seriously by most people, so he decides to try and accomplish the same thing, but less conspicuously, using his elaborately convoluted, serious-sounding ramblings as a veneer of respectability. While Hume's weapon is unbridled skepticism, Kant's modus operandi is excessive obfuscation.

Kant is to Hume what a libertarian is to an anarchist, or what a liberal is to a communist, or what a "person sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians" is to a Nazi: sounds less kooky, but says the same things.

[Tomer]

If Kant sets out to refute Hume, because he understands how dangerous Hume's "Nothing Exists" philosophy is, then why does he end up in such a mess?

More specifically, if Kant is setting out to establish and objective (and I mean this in the anti-subjective context, not in the Objectivism context) universe in which there is an absolute right or wrong answer to every question then how can he remove the "outcome" of an action from one's consideration of right or wrong? 

Kant's goal was to integrate science and religion. He took it for granted that both are equally valid.

Both Kant and Hume had set up to destroy the self-certainty of man. Their methods?

Hume, by skepticizing the law of causality. Kant, by using mind-paralyzing writings.

Hume, obviously was easier to refute because he was clearer, but those who were confident enough, had no problem refuting Kant as well (it is only a question of learning to learn Kant. I reffer you to any refference to Kant made by Ayn Rand).