fletch

This being a forum dedicated to Objectivism, how about we use the Rand Method and cut through the bull. Why do you support this man, mammon?

I think the womans remarks ticked Rand off a bit, but I dont think her response to the woman rude at all. She certainly acted with more grace than I would have if someone trashed my lifes work as being an immature, cultish, irresponsible, elitist, self-indulgent, me-generation fad. Also, I suspect that the earlier episode that is referenced is not a case of her becoming 'unhinged.' More than likely, she faced a hostile audience there to attack her every word rather than hear what she had to say.

Obama and Co. know they cannot raise enough cash by just squeezing the rich. The middle class is where the real wealth is. But rather than tax them directly and lose the next election, they tax business knowing full well that business will pass along the increase to the consumers. Having already set big business up as a villain, the price increases brought about by thngs like 'cap and trade' will be blamed on corporate greed and price gouging. Its a win-win situation for the statists.

The Santelli speech made in on Fox News Sunday show as well. Why is what he said (which really isnt that big of a deal) getting so much attention? For the same reason that Joe the Plumber did. They both had the nerve to point out the elephant in the room. Were there a legitimate, principled republican opposition in place, such statements of outrage would not have to be left to cable news analysts and some guy good with a pipe wrench. Will some republican somewhere please stand up!

Technically, haze is spelled correctly, but it is a poor substitute for the word has. I am not sure chow he could have assumed that either.

I dont find myself agreeing with Pelosi very often, but here, she got it exactly right. As for those people who voted for change, but not this type of change, they were not paying attention.

I'm sure you do. By the way, what is on this weeks pledge class agenda, Mammon?

Nice avatar.

By magazines I thought he was referring to the 'grandpa's Playboy collection' type.

I think the feelings that NewbieOist is expressing are not all that uncommon for, well, newbie Oists. You discover a philosophy that in every way seems right only to notice that the whole of civilization is tripping over itself in a race in the opposite direction. To be honest, every time our new president opens his mouth, the words "we're doomed" run through my head. I dont advocate giving up, but I think we are in for a long night. And it might be that few, if any, of us will be around when the dawn finally breaks.

Does he need to define it, or do those words already have a meaning? Rather than criticize anyone who criticizes Obama, how about if you lay out for us a positive argument for Obama. Clearly you support the guy, why not tell us why?

In your opinion, what are the 'founding ideals' of this nation? Which ones were at odds? And in what ways were they compromised?

Actually, the best thing to do is to stand up for what you believe. The question isnt "why dont you believe in God?" The question is "Why do they? You have to remember, you are a threat to them. Your rational approach is a constant challenge to their unthinking belief. It forces them to ponder the imponderable. Generally speaking, it is not your soul that believers are concerned with, it is their own.

So you say, but the evidence points in a different direction. Madison in Federalist 41 addresses the issue of the 'general welfare clause': "It has been urged and echoed that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States,' amounts to sn unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense and the general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstrution. Had no other enumeration of definition of the powers of congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objections might have some color for it...." In short, Madison is saying that the general welfare clause is a general expression that is then defined by specific powers. As he later puts it: "Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars." What you are doing disregarding the particular enumerated powers and focusing on the general statement. That was clearly not the intent. The idea was to do the opposite. If the founders wished the Constitution to be vague as you suggest, they could have wrapped up the whole Constitutional Convention in a matter of moments with the following declaration: We the people hereby authorize this and future congresses to provide for the general welfare however they choose to define it.

One wonders why the robber chose to turn himself into a goat rather than those pursuing him. The limits of Black Magic, I guess. Good to know that such a ploy is not going to fool those Nigerian cops, though.

Obama believes that the road to salvation runs through the state. He embraces altruism, champions collectivism and demands sacrifice. If you think that does not automatically = bad, then what good do you expect to see from this guy? The only time he mentions the free market is when he want to regulate it, re-prioritize it, or confiscate the the wealth created by it. As for Obama Killing the dinosaurs, I will have to do a little more research on that one. But if he knew they would turn into all that oil millions of years later, he probably would not have done it. Here is a link to the Philadelphia speech that apparently got Cline (and thus, Mammon) all riled up: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/us/polit...nted=1&_r=1 Maybe I have just grown accustomed to this guy, but it strikes me as run of the mill Obama-speak. There is no doubt, however, that Obama is ignoring the principles behind the Revolution and casting himself and his contrary beliefs as a fulfillment of that history.

In the eyes of the Robert Reichs' of the world, white males were the beneficiaries of the old capitalist economy. You know, the kind of capitalism where whites got rich exploiting the land, the animals, the Indians, the women, the poor, etc. Part of the 'change' that is coming our way is to correct some of the 'inequities' of the past. After all, it is white males like yourself that has brought the country to its economic knees. Someone has to pay for all of Obamas grand plans. You dont really expect the down-trodden to pay for it do you?

OK, lets do that. Here is Madison from Federalist No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States." What you are doing is taking that single phrase, ignoring the context, and using it to discredit and reinterpret the entire document. The Constitution was not a grand compromise, at least not in the way you mean it. All of those assembled were united behind the idea that that the governing principle behind the Constitution was the limitation on the power of government. The powers are enumerated. They were not left open ended and vague so that future generations of elected officials could use a document created to ensure the survival of liberty to enslave the population. Or, as Madison put it in Federalist No. 48: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government would be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistry as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectively checked and restrained by the others." Obviously, that power was not as well checked as he had hoped, but if you focus on the notion that the US was 'founded on free principles,' you cannot come away with the idea that the founders meant for the state to be the 'provider' of the general welfare.

A good example is the $3,000 tax credit that Obama promised during the campaign to give to businesses that hire new employees. That idea has been officially scrubed from the stimulus package. Obama let the idea die without comment. That does not mean that he was lying during the campaign when he promised to do it. He is just being pragmatic. Since he is not fixed to any particular course of action, he simply moves on to something else.

I dont think Obama is a liar, its worse than that. He actually believes his own rhetoric. What you have in Obama is a guy who believes that if he gathers around him some of the best minds, together, they can run the economy from a central location. He plans to succeed where all others have failed. When he says something like "Look. I am a pro-growth, free market guy. I love the market." He's not lying, but then again, hes not talking about the free market, hes talking about what we have now--a mixed economy. That is what he loves. And he will grow to love it even more as he adds greater and greater government intrusion into the mix.

Funny you should say that. Immediately after reading that I clicked the main forum link and this bus-ready quote came up: "The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.--Ayn Rand"

TW, One of your main objections to the Israeli assault on Gaza was the Egyptian respsonse. Well here is another article on that point: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123154855613269959.html

The CBO projected this years budget deficit to be $1.2 trillion dollars. And that number does not include the stimulus package that Harry Reed said could itself be $1.2 trillion. The idea that in a single year we could have a $2 trillion deficit is sheer madness.

I agree completely with the first sentence, but am not quite with you on the second one. If you use 1776 as your starting point, it is still almost 90 years before slavery is officially done away with. Worse, it is another hundred years before MLK comes along and finally rids the culture of slavery's remnants. That slavery existed is one thing, that during my lifetime there existed segregation and 'whites only' water fountains is embarrassing, and could probably rightly be called a stain. But like Lincoln before him, King's references to the principles of the founders is what ultimately prevailed.

That cant be real. But it is funny.