Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


utabintarbo last won the day on October 20 2011

utabintarbo had the most liked content!

About utabintarbo

  • Birthday 06/11/1960

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Sterling Heights, MI

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Biography/Intro
    About Bob I am a "Systems Analyst" at a large multinational automotive firm. While that sounds cool, what I really do is mainly tech support and development for data communications systems for large CNC cutting tools. I also do a fair amount of R&D on similar systems. I am a graduate of University of Michigan - Dearborn campus as of December of 2003 with an Information Systems degree. It only took me 25 years to graduate! I am married to a wonderful lady who takes good care of me. She's the smart one in the relationship. While I am a computer geek, she is an insurance geek. She has about 13 letters after her name from all her insurance designations. This is in addition to pulling a 4.0 GPA all the way through Walsh College, her alma mater. Like I said, she's the smart one. ;-)
  • Occupation
    Systems Analist

Recent Profile Visitors

2546 profile views

utabintarbo's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Does this not also rule out any Democrat, quasi-Democrat, liberal, etc. as well?
  2. One would think that the candidates themselves would support such a check. Anything they find will undoubtedly be found by someone. Better to find out sooner, rather than later.
  3. I imagine that is possible, but from a viewpoint of political pragmatism, highly unlikely. After all, Bush 2 had the Presidency and both houses, and it didn't happen. Like it or not, the political will of the electorate matters, and nothing is likely to happen in the foreseeable future to change that. Basing one's political choices of the possibility of an exceedingly unlikely scenario seems ....wasteful. The more likely scenario is that Barry gets a 2nd term, turns even more ridiculously to the left (since he'll have more "flexibility" by being relieved of the burden of reelection), nominates 2 Justices to the SCOTUS, and we'll relive the massive expansion of Federal power brought on by the Warren court, only on steroids and crystal meth. Or we elect Romney, and realign more center-right, get 2 Justices of the Roberts mold, and find that we still have to guess how cases will be decided. In either scenario, BTW, we encounter an economic crisis which may render all this moot.
  4. It is unlikely that we will have a decade. More likely that it will happen within a year. Be prepared.
  5. Nobody wants to reverse Roe v. Wade, despite all protestations to the contrary. Abortion rights enjoys the support of a majority of the public. As long as that holds true, it will never be overturned. The SCOTUS would simply deny writ. They don't want to get involved in that either. I really don't understand Objectivists that see the right as a threat vis-a-vis the left. It seems to indicate an absolute political tin ear, as if we were politically on the very precipice of falling into a theocracy if <insert Republican candidate here> is elected. It ain't going to happen. There is no political will to go there. One might hear stuff like that from the crazies that tend to get the attention of the press, but it seems only other crazies take them seriously. Generalizing that view onto an entire swath of the electorate, and the candidates that make tangentially obsequious noises in their direction (because that's where the press is looking) is a mistake. One must realize that the Presidential Election is a game much like Survivor, and integrity is not included in the rules.
  6. Judging from the article, thinking is not a strong point with him.
  7. Not really. They will, at the very least, shed the stink from that 0-16 season, and become a potential destination for the odd free agent who may just put them "over the top" to get into the Super Bowl conversation. Besides, with Stafford and C. Johnson, they have at least a "puncher's chance". If they had any running game at all, I'd give them more than that.
  8. "Religious science" is kinda oxymoronic. It seems to be an attempt to "square the circle", allowing room for both rationality and faith. Such cognitive dissonance would give me a headache, but it seems to be needed by some.
  9. Agreed. I was off the wagon for a bit there, but I am pretty firmly back on it now. I see the Lions in playoffs as being all-but assured. BTW, Green Bay's loss will not hurt that assessment in the least, as they will no longer be going for perfection (and WTF! - a loss to the freaking CHIEFS!!!!!). Unfortunately, I also see a quick exit from them being pretty likely as well.
  10. Amorality means, in this context, that they (Adam & Eve) would have had no frame of reference to determine that eating the fruit, or even dying, was "wrong". Before the eating of the fruit, "wrong" (or "right", ftm) didn't exist.
  11. And, of course, that begs the question... You're missing the point: If Adam & Eve had no knowledge of the concepts of "right and wrong" before they ate the fruit, how would they know it was "wrong" to eat it? Kinda like an ex post facto law.
  12. The OWS types (generally speaking) are essentially laying the groundwork for greater statism. This will likely become manifest when the US hits the economic wall of debt it has constructed, and the government will be forced into the Morton's Fork of printing (a la Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany) or running government on an effectively cash basis. This will zero out nearly all social program spending, sparking unrest. Order will be demanded. You see where this is going....
  13. True, the deficit will keep growing, until it can't. That is, when there will be no demand for Treasury debt at sustainable interest rates. You can see this happening in Italy as we speak - the interest rates on their sovereign debt is rising rapidly. At the point where the carrying costs of the outstanding debt exceed tax revenue, you become instantly insolvent. With the kind of deficits we are running, even a small uptick in interest rates on Treasury debt would be disastrous (assuming our present level of "obligations"). The alternatives would be inflate or run government on a cash basis. The second is the kind of austerity that would be economically sustainable, but politically unworkable. Too many people out there feel "entitled" to their free shit (see mass protests in Greece - it will be no different here, other than the guns ). But printing to satiate the masses blows the whole system up and effectively takes the US government with it. Better to put down riots than have utter chaos consume us. In any case, given the general attitude of entitlement (see AARP ), the only politically viable course is to keep the free bennies rolling. They may be trimmed a bit (with much wailing and gnashing of teeth), but they will not go away. There are very few politicians out there willing to commit political suicide, and very many who will tell people what they want to hear (see GOP Debates ). Given the nature of compound interest, we are long past the point at which a long-term plan will be sufficient. We need to cut spending. Now.
  • Create New...