Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fletch

  1. 4,000+ American lives lost for the sake of others, for a war that could have been over in a matter of days, for a war that was totally unnecessary.

    I think the idea that the Iraq war was totally unnecessary comes mainly from the view of hindsight. Viewed within the context of 9/11 and the unanimity of global intelligence agencies as to the stockpiles of WMD and Saddam's pursuit of nuclear capabilities, the US was justified in taking him out. Once we had done so, leaving was not an option, at least not a very good one. Had we left after ousting Saddam, God knows what would have filled the power vacuum. Al qaeda simply would have moved its operations from Afghanistan to Iraq and we would have had to go back in there anyway.

    This is not to say that I support Bush's handling of the first few years of the war. It took the Democrats taking control of congress to get that blockhead to change from a strategy that was clearly not working. Had he done so sooner, many of those 4000+ American lives might have been spared. For that, he deserves whatever criticism he gets.

  2. I like it alot. I do have one minor criticism, however. In the very beginning, you have two sentences that are not sentences:

    "Especially at night, with only the faint bluish glow of Lesser Big Moon."

    "And a good place in which to meet someone unobserved, even had The Woods been crawling with Lianastran’s enjoying a mild evening."

    I think you can get away with that sort of thing if you do it occasionally or if you are trying to emphasize something, but I had to re-read the first part to make sure I understood what you were saying. Other than that, I thought it was great.

  3. I do not believe 'we won', morally or tactically.

    Why not? I strikes me that we did both. How can turning a nation with the worlds largest reserves of oil from a belligerent anti-western dictatorship into a pro-western democracy be seen as anything other than victory? If one looks at the situation in Iraq exactly two years ago, the US was not only on the verge of a humiliating defeat, but a civil or even regional war in the Middle East. We did, indeed, snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

    Bush, Gen. David Petraeus, and the thousands of soldiers who risked their lives there have earned and deserve the term 'victory.' Today as VI Day sounds good to me.

  4. Now the politicians are asking the auto companies for a "plan" that shows how they're going to become viable again.

    As if any of those politicians are qualified to judge the merits of any "plan" put forward by the auto makers anyway. I suspect what will happen is that the auto makers will put forth a plan that will "convice" the Democratic members of the panel to approve a bailout. The viability plan will be nothing more than 'business as usual.'

  5. One anecdote: While interviewing random people on the streets of Harlem Howard Stern ascribed to Obama positions of McCain (like being pro life and having Sarah Palin as his vice presidential pick) - yet people still supported Obama and some even said that those were THE reasons they are voting for Obama.

    You can hear that here:


  6. No one specific and everyone. It was a general summation of many statements.

    Well, you cleared that up. Now, if you could work that nonsensical statement into a rhyme you could write for Dr Seuss.

    Your petty word games and snide insults do not impress me. Try again.

    I wasnt trying to impress you, but I will put that on my 'to do' list.

  7. They want to violate the right for two consenting romantically linked adults to enter into a legally binding contract with one another. Thus violating the right to the pursuit of happiness.
    They dont object to two men entering into a legally binding contract with one another, they object to labeling that contract a marriage. Now that California has defined marriage as one man and one woman, whose rights have been violated? A gay man has the exact same rights as a straight man--they can marry anyone of the opposite sex who is willing to have them. There is nothing to stop a gay man from getting married, so long as he marries a woman.

    They want to violate the First Amendment by pushing for faith-based initiatives. Thus violating the right to liberty.
    How is a faith based initiative more egregious than a non faith based initiative? Is a government handout in the name of religion any worse than any other government handout done in the name of the common good?

    All the while they trump themselves as the "True Americans" some even going so far as to claim the country is for Christians only.
    Who said that?

    your obviously a dillusional liberal
    I dont think he broke any real ground with that accusation.
  8. What is the point of wealth in this life if it gets you to hell in the next?

    What you are suggesting is that God makes no distinction between the man who reaps a monetary reward for his virtues--hard work, productivity, ingenuity--and the man who reaps a monetary reward for his vices--theft and fraud. He condemns both men equally to eternal damnation. I am not sure what value a god is that cannot make simple moral distinctions. Explain to me again why such a creature is worthy of my worship.

  9. Fair enough... they're going on assuming (or at least hoping) that he will give them a chance to actually present their side.

    Well, he is giving 5 guys from ARI exclusive access to his entire 3 hour show, so they will have ample opportunity to present their views on a range of subjects. Liddy is not Ingram, and this is not some 5-minute interview where the host can just shout them down. He doesnt operate that way. I suspect that many people here will have an entirely different view of Liddy after the show airs. He is a very interesting and thoughtful guy.

  10. Gasoline prices are finally coming down, but expect them to go higher over the next several years once Obama has his way.

    There are two things we know for certain about Obama: 1) He hangs around some unsavory characters. 2) He will oppose any effort to expand domestic oil production. Everything else is a question mark. What that means is that after 4 or (God forbid) 8 years of Obama we can expect that the US will have an even greater dependency on foreign oil, there will be less of it to go around and we will be paying alot more for it. The global economic slowdown has given us a respite from the high price of gas and an opportunity to increase our own production. Doing so would mean a greater supply of oil when the world economy recovers and the demand for oil and the price begins to rise. Obama, however, will only hamstring the industry guaranteeing that one legacy of the his administration is $200 per barrel oil.

  11. If any two people make a similar "shared life" commitment as in a marriage, with all the similar implied legal obligations, assumed agency, etc., then the government ought to recognize that as valid. Calling it marriage or not calling it marriage is of no importance as far as the law is concerned.

    Why should such a contract be limited to two people? Who decides what the definition of marriage is? If it is not one man and one woman, what is it?

  12. I think people like Rudy Giuliani fit the"fiscally conservative, socially liberal" profile. He ran such a poor campaign that it is still unknown as to whether such a candidate can win nationally. But regionally the answer is yes. Republicans need a regional strategy: the fiscally conservative, socially liberal style that wins on the east and west coast like Giuliani, Ptaki, Romney that might carry traditional blue states in a general election. A Republican that can win in places like New York or California can afford to lose the Christians in Alabama. But they need to develope these type of candidates first.

  13. But the implication that Jensen is trying to imply is that Rand condoned racial genocide of Indians because they're uncivilized. That's what I'm asking about, if Jensen did in fact misrepresent Rand in a straw man argument.

    What was the context for that quote you pulled from Jensen's book? Did he comment on her quote or did he just leave it hang there? I think if we knew what the next paragraph was, it might be easier to decide if he was intentionally misrepresenting what she said.

  14. No the issue with Carter was that at the end of 4 yrs he hadn't fixed it. Carter remained faithful to his principles throughout his administration, and lost. Reagan ran on change. This is a case of "it's the economy, stupid." The election was a referendum on the economy. You're right in that he might get away for a while by blaming the previous administration, however, he can't enact anything like what people are saying he will without making it significantly worse. It's a two edged sword this belief that the govt actually controls the economy.

    I think the problem is that we dont have any idea of what Obama will do. He may not either. But we know his principles--bigger government, more regulation, more spending, higher taxes. We can hope that the facts of reality constrain him, but since he has no real record, there is no way to know for sure. He can do a lot of damage beneath the surface through increased regulation and environmental policies. (Who he picks to head the EPA will give us a clue) Small, unknown,and seemingly insignificant laws can cause untold damage. Look how much damage the CRA did. We also know that he will not expand oil drilling and exploration, which means that when and if the economy does recover, look for gas prices to to $5+. He has said many things, promised even more, and has been vague about just about everything. Since his entire adult life has been about aligning himself with the most radical elements of the left, I dont hold out much hope that he will moderate now that he has the power to enact much of what he claims to believe. But, we shall see.

  15. I agree with Rand's characterization entirely, and I look back upon the last 8 yrs of confiscatory spending, perpetrated under the same system that Obama will do so, and know that there is no way he can accomplish even near the same sort of economic disaster in the name of altruism than this which has already been done to us. Not at least withouth propelling the country into more than a Great Depression for which he will be ejected from office promptly a la Carter. The current administration has already confiscated such from you, and done it in such a way that the effect will last for decades. How is this different than what Obama will do? If Obama outspends his budget by another 5 TRILLION dollars, it will push the US beyond a depression. The Dollar will collapse. Inflation will skyrocket. His own interest in a 2nd term will stop him from going as far as the current adminstration already has. While you were experiencing socialism I was experiencing what happens to a President who tries anything like that (Carter).

    I think the difference is that Carter was considered to be the cause of the economic maliase of the late 70's. Obama, on the other hand, can always lay the blame on others even if his Rx makes the problem even worse. FDR managed to get re-elected 3 times while pursuing policies that made things worse, so it can be done.

  • Create New...