Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by gags

  1. What reason is there to believe that Romney/Ryan will ever make even a half-decent case for individual rights, or think that the Republican party has a better propensity to listen? If anything, there is a greater propensity for Republicans (or similar minded people) to take a good idea, and absolutely corrupt it in the name of god.

    The reason one should believe they can make a half-decent case for individual rights is because in his brief acceptance speech yesterday, Ryan said something to the effect that: "Our rights come from God and nature, not the government." When is the last time you heard a major party VP or Presidential candidate with a chance to win the election make a statement like that?

    In politics, change comes incrementally and in the US our presidential choices are essentially binary. The stakes are high in this election and an Obama victory will make it impossible to reverse his healthcare plan and will further hasten the destruction of our economy. The only people with a realistic shot at preventing that are Romney and Ryan.

  2. You can view it as something positive, but don't call upon me and others to follow suit because he can "pronounce Rand's name correctly."

    I might be a bit more optimistic if I did not believe we are a pivotal moment in American history.

    However, I do, and Ryan's voting record doesn't give any credibility to the words he speaks.

    I too believe we are at a pivotal point in American history. If Obama is re-elected and he retains control of the Senate, we may not recognize this country in 4 short years. The man is a hard core leftist who has a vision of America which is the opposite of the Founders and he rejects the principles that made this country great.

    Granted, the Republican record is a sorry one when it comes to opposing the creeping statism that is destroying America. Nevertheless, as Craig24 said: "You have two and only two choices: re-elect Obama, un-elect Obama." At least with Romney/Ryan we have a chance to make a case for reason, individual rights, and freedom to a party that has some propensity to listen. With Obama/Biden we won't have that chance and America will surely go the way of Europe.

  3. I like this choice in the sense that as SN says, it will further focus the debate on the fiscal future of America. Even though Ryan's plan has problems, it's far better than the alternative proposed by Obama, which is to simply continue down the current road and step on the gas while we're at it. The fiscal cliff is dead ahead.

    The Ryan pick makes this election a stark choice for the American people. You can choose a set of policies that will eventually make us into another Greece, or you can choose a different direction. Clearly that different direction as proposed by Romney and Ryan is not perfect from the point of view of an Objectivist, but it's a hell of a lot better than the absolutely insane path toward destruction that's being pushed by Obama.

  4. Unfortunately there are lots and lots of Grandmas (and Grandpas for that matter) in this country who are willing to stick their grandkids with the bill. Worse yet, they become indignant when someone suggests that perhaps they should work and save to provide for their own continued existence, rather than forcing others to do so. Future Grandmas would be wise to consider the possiblity that at some point the grandkids are going to rebel and the whole system will collapse.

  5. Yeah, Perry and Romney seem most likely to be the long-haul candidates. (The betting on Intrade give them each 1:3 odds, with Bachman at under 1:10). I don't think Bachman has a chance in a general election: I think she'll appear too light-weight to the "independent" voter. Heavier than Palin perhaps, but with more religious-nutcase baggage too. Huntsman came across as honest in the debate, but didn't seem to have the required presence.

    Huntsman is another non-starter. One has to appeal to conservatives in the Republican primaries and Huntsman's strategy of running to the middle might work in the general election, but he won't get that far.

    It's interesting that there are two Mormons in the field this year. Clearly the Obama machine is going to use Romney's Mormonism against him. He's going to be too "wierd" to be President.... as though all religion isn't wierd.

  6. This reminds me of a twilight zone episode http://en.wikipedia....he_Obsolete_Man

    Mr. Krugman, you are obsolete!

    Krugman is apparently a Twilight Zone fan and gets much of his economic expertise from that show. Watch the video of his comments on CNN this weekend.


    If you ever wondered whether real life figures could be as evil as some of the characters in Rand's novels, Krugman is a living breathing Ellsworth Toohey.

  7. This race seems to be similar to last time, with Romney in McCain's shoes, and with Perry and Bachman somewhat where Huckabee was the last time around. I think it adds up to Romney being the most likely nominee, but it is early days yet.

    I think you're right so far. The Republicans have this obsession with giving the nomination to whoever hangs on long enough to make an argument that it's now my turn. Romney fits that bill to a T, just like McCain and Bob Dole did. They were both obvious losers, but it was their turn to go down in flames.

    However, this time may just be different. The Tea Party folks seem to have influence beyond their numbers and they may push a guy like Perry to the front of the pack. Romney is still the guy to beat, but Perry might do it.

  8. In the middle of today's market meltdown, Obama decided to give a little speech..... you know, just to add confidence and alleviate some of the panic that seemed to be setting in. Of course after he got up and spouted his normal set of worthless platitiudes, the market proceeded to dive another 300 or so points to end down by 635 today.

    If there's a silver lining to all of this, it may be that these recent market drops are likely disturbing enough to the general public that they'll ensure Obama's defeat in 2012.

  9. And when it does and she has to work a few more hours a week to cover the lost income, like she would have to without the program anyway? Assuming the US does become Greece ten or twenty years down the road, she'll still have gained tens of thousands of dollars more than if she had never enrolled in the system. SS has it's own fund anyway separate from the government budget and the current shortfall in projected funding can be made up by pretty minor adjustments to benefits and revenue stream once it stops running a surplus and spends all the trust fund way off in 2040.

    Not to mention that without SS she would probably be unemployed and penniless given the current economy.

    Pretty likely considering she's about 70. But speculative arguments about what may be in the self interest of people other than herself are going to be evaluated against the large amount of wealth and leisure time she gains from SS in her determination of self interest, and it's not like she couldn't save and invest in her survivalist gold stash if she saw the collapse of industrial civilization due to one single government program as a realistic concern. Overall she would most likely have somewhat less money- perhaps $50k already- if it wasn't for the existence of social security.

    Oh well, you continue to miss the point. Welfare statism is based on a system of morality that is anti-man. You started this thread to learn about the Objectivist view of morality and it has been adequately explained to you why man needs a moral system and why living as a thief off of the un-earned wealth of others is contrary to rational morality and not in your long-term best interest. At this point, that's about all anyone here can do for you.

  10. So are you not certain, then, whether or not the existence of a government wealth transfer program, SS, is in Grandma's self interest? Because if Grandma supports Social Security, I myself wouldn't doubt her belief that the program is in her self interest. She's the best judge of that as far as I can tell, and I haven't seen a compelling argument as to why this isn't so.

    This was explained well in the Prudent Predator thread. I'll echo what others have already suggested and tell you again that you should go back and read it.

    As far as a real world example is concerned, the looming debt crises in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the US and other countries are the direct result of grandma's system of morality. Social welfare systems like those in the US and Western Europe are fundamentally altruistic in nature. When one pressure group is able to extract wealth from another group at the point of a gun, that system can only function for so long. Eventually the producers tire of being fleeced, they shrug and the system collapses. Of course this may take years to come to a head and grandma might be able to cheat reality for a while and live off of the unearned wealth of others, but eventually that will end. Unfortunately, the end will probably be very bad for everyone and the damage caused by grandma and her system of morality will cause a lot of people to be hurt. I suppose that grandma might even be lucky enough to live like a parasite and die before the day of reckoning comes, but she will have left one hell of a mess for her grandson to sort out.

  11. A stash of pornography was found in the Pakistani compound of Usama bin Laden raided last week by Navy SEALs, U.S. officials told Fox News.

    The pornography taken from the compound, first reported by Reuters, is said to have included modern, electronically recorded video and is described as fairly extensive.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/13/extensive-porn-stash-reportedly-bin-laden-compound/#ixzz1MKGv0Qu6

    Ha! The 9/11 hijackers frequented strip clubs and Bin Laden had a thing for porn. Imagine that, a Muslim fundi hypocrit. :lol:

  12. It makes sense to get rid of the body. The U.S. government was clearly not going to do something like throwing him to dogs or hanging his body from a bridge while people tear at it. So, keeping the body would have meant weeks and months, if not years of discussion about the body...with all sorts of complications: some people insisting that he should not be buried in their state, relative saying that he should be returned to Saudi Arabia, and all sorts. Essentially, keeping the body would put Obama in a situation where he would have to make a decision about its disposal where every option had a political-cost. Given that context, he did the sensible thing by getting rid of it fast, before debate and discussion, and by doing so where it was simply gone.

    Yes, not to mention the fact that you wouldn't want his grave to become a shrine that the Jihaddi jerk-offs would come to visit.

  13. Michael Medved gave the movie a lukewarm (2 out of 4 stars) review. However, he does like Taylor Schilling's peformance as Dagney. He also correctly identifies the good in the movie when he says: "If this clunky but earnest movie helps persuade people that it’s not good when government crushes industry, or handicaps society’s most productive achievers, then it will serve a purpose beyond entertainment value."

  14. That's a pretty funny interview. Too bad the topic is so serious. The main-stream media's love affair with all things Obama continues.....

    Swine, thanks for posting the Mrs. Clinton statement about Assad being a "reformer". Clearly the people leading our nation's foreign policy couldn't be any more incompetent. After Obama leaves power, I'm confident that we'll be able to fix all or at least most of his domestic disasters (healthcare, deficit spending, over-regulation, etc...). However, when you're dealing with foreign policy, people get killed as a result of your mistakes. This administration is rapidly creating a series of foreign policy disasters that may take decades to fix.

  15. We encouraged Mubarak to leave, as we should have. Using rhetoric to push for dictators to step down and allow their countries to democratize is an appropriate and desirable thing for our government to do. It does not constitute intervention and certainly does not constitute "removing" anyone. And yes, Salih is in power but is preparing to step down. Assad is still in power but his government resigned.

    Ok, thanks for the clarification. For a second there, I thought you might be extremely confused.

  16. And now for some comedic relief, ladies and gentlemen, William Kristol.....

    Absolutely incredible. The Left's hypocrisy on Libya is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

    They've been there for weeks, even when Congress was still in session.

    Well, that figures. Now that the rebels have again shown themselves to be militarily incompetent, how long before our involvement grows?

  • Create New...