fletch
-
Posts
549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by fletch
-
-
Michelle Obama: "Obama will ask you to serve. He won't allow you to stay uninformed/uninvolved". What was the chant again? Yes, we will? or was it Yes we can?
If Obama is able to enact his mandatory voluntary service programs, I believe that chant will become "Yes you will." But I suspect that not much will come of it. If anything, the democrats will use such things as a means of consolidating their power. They might offer a tuition credit for students who volunteer in 'get out the vote' drives around election time. They would be billed as non-partisan, of course, but would focus exclusively on inner city neighborhoods where republican votes are cast solely on accident. Voter registration, knocking on doors, phone drives, even offering help in filling out ballots for the homeless, the illiterate, the blind, the comatose, and the newly deceased will net a person a semester or two of college on the house.
-
Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in the Congress is going to push him toward accepting extreme left wing policies. Democrats like John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, et. al. have some pretty far-out views on a number of very important issues. I wonder if Obama has the spine to prevent these clowns from dragging the country into their leftist nightmare.
We see it as a nightmare, but there is no reason to believe that Obama does. You have to remember, he was the Senate's most liberal member. Had he lost the election, he would have voted right along with the likes of Conyers, Waxman, et. al., so there is no reason that I can see to believe that he will oppose them as president. I'm afraid that hoping, as some seem to want to do, that Obama will 'moderate' his views as president is wishful thinking. Congressional leftists wont have to pull him over the cliff, they will all just hold hands and jump together.
-
How about answering your own question? You have been more than a defender of the man, you are enthusiastic about his presidency. Since this is a board for the discussion of Objectivism, would you care to put your support for him into that context? What is it, exactly, about Obama's political, economic or ethical philosophy that an admirer of Objectivism should find attractive?What are my views regarding Obama? -
I am going to look at the bright side. The idea that America is a 'racist nation' can finally be put to rest. A black man was elected president in a landslide. And the first people to hit the unemployment lines under an Obama administration are the race hustlers like Sharpton, Jackson, Farakhan, and Rev. Wright. Obama prooved that America is the land of opportunity, lets hope he doesnt ruin it for the rest of us.
-
You are actively exemplifying the kind of evil that I seek to eliminate.
Evil? Dont you think that is a bit much?
-
Again with the theocracy... there is NO threat whatsoever of a theocracy.
Can someone name the last time a Christian takeover of a free or semi-free democracy occurred? Are there examples of Christian theocracies existing in the world today?
Then list the number of free states that have fallen to left-wing takeovers.
-
I think that is an excellent idea, Kevin, lets see if anyone takes you up on it. For myself, I am no fan of John McCain. I agree with virtually every criticism leveled against him here and I believe he would likely be a horrible president and do untold damage to the long term interests of the country. I will vote for him not as a show of support for him, but as a vote against the guy who I believe will be even worse.So I would just like to ask - for the record Mammon, et al, what do you NOT like about Obama? Let's hear YOUR criticisms. -
Sophia, I think you're right. This article from News Busters (I've never heard of the site) quotes Obama as saying that he will bankrupt the coal industry during an interview with the San Fransisco Chronicle.
Good of the media to keep that little gem out of circulation. Wouldnt want the public to view Obama as some sort of extremist. Makes you wonder what else is out there. Apparently there is some video that the LA Times has but wont release of Obama heaping praise on some PLO spokesman. I heard it was given to the Times on the condition that it never be shown in public. I wonder what it is we are not supposed to see?
-
If the man was a radical as the men people compare him too, he would be talking about nationalizing industries and actually pitting the rich and poor against each other. "Actually" as in actually saying such things.
Are you trying to suggest that taking wealth from the top 5% of wage earners and 'spreading it around' to the bottom 95% is not pitting rich against the poor? As for Obama's past associations, I wonder if you would be as forgiving if it was learned that McCain frequented a church for 20 years that blatantly preached racism against blacks or Jews, or that he palled around with Tim McVey, or regularly dined with David Duke. What is telling about Obama's circle of friends is not that he necessarily believes what they believe, but that he is not offended by what they believe--at least not offended enough to find a new group of friends.
-
Of course, Trancinski is nothing more then a glorified Republican cheerleader and apologist.
From what I can tell, you are nothing more than a glorified Democrat cheerleader and apologist. Should we pay no attention to what you say on the topic of politics? Or should we judge your words against the facts of reality?
-
I think it is Obama that is trying to make a virtue out of theft.
-
...We flushed 'em out. We found out they're not really Republicans and they're by no means conservatives, and now they're gone. Now the trick is to keep 'em out.
I think Limbaugh's reaction is a window into how Republicans will likely respond to a McCain defeat. McCain was never a darling of the religious right, nor conservatives in general. His claim to fame was his image as a maverick and his ability to draw moderates into the party. A defeat next week by McCain will back up Limbaugh's long held contention that moderates are worthless and that the way for republicans to win elections is to appeal to the base and stick to conservative principles. By contrast, a McCain victory will vindicate his moderate image and show that a path to victory for republicans can be achieved without bowing before the religious right.
It also helps clarify what is at stake in this election, and what goals, both short and long term, can be achieved. Those like me who feel that socialism is the greater threat are likely to cast their vote for McCain. He represents the political status quo except that it will be the Christians that will be on the outside looking in. They will likely have little influence on him and whatever influence they might have will be erased by a congress controlled by democrats. Others who feel that religion is the greater threat should not automatically assume that an Obama victory is the right approach. Nothing is more likely to unify the republicans around their religious base than an Obama victory. Christian Fundamentalism will gain in political strength with an Obama victory, not be weakened. With the idea of appealing to moderates discredited, future republican candidates will bow before the religious right and fully embrace their agenda. So, in a sense, an Obama victory is a victory for both socialism and Christian Fundamentalism
-
Wells Fargo, one of the banks listed in the article, is apparently trying to loan out some of that money the government has given them. Last year, I co-signed for a car loan for one of my employees with Wells Fargo. I had never had any contact with them before or since, until today that is. A woman from there called me to see if I was interested in a loan. To make a long story short, she told me she could make some sort of vehicle loan, where if I could provide her with a VIN number from a vehicle that I told her was worth $10, 000, she could cut me a check for $16,000. I dont know how common such loans are, but it struck me as quite a mark-up for a vehicle that will only depreciate in value over time. Maybe I am wrong, but it doesnt strike me as particularly wise risk for a bank to make.
-
It doesn't. Listen to the lectures.
I have tried to link to the ARI website for the last 3 days and keep getting an error report when I try to go beyond the main page. If you could link me to a lecture or an article that deals with this particular subject, that would be great.
-
ARI intellectuals have made a very strong case that the altruism behind Christianity is the threat, because it offers some sort of morality, and they have offered strong evidence that that threat is well advanced of any efforts based upon individual rights to influence politics in this country and it's influence is one the right.
Why does the religious left in this country get a pass? It might be that much of the leadership does not appeal directly to religion, and often pursue policies that seem in direct conflict with it, but the core of its rank and file members are very religious. It is perfectly acceptable for a leftist to campaign for office in a black church, but a right winger will be accused of plotting a religious coup if he campaigns in a white/evangelical church. I can only conclude that the difference between the religious altruists on the left and the religious altruists on the right is that one seeks political advancement for its moral beliefs while the other seeks the political advancement of its economic beliefs.
I had the good fortune (?) of marrying into an Irish Catholic family. Virtually all, including friends, are very religious and very leftist. They are leftist largely because of their religion. They see capitalism as unfair and thus, evil and the welfare state as just and thus, good. To them the welfare state is a means of implementing their faith. The left wants altruism imposed by the state. A form of Christian socialism, if you will. The right is more focused on moral matters and is largely content to coexist with the free market--which is why they dont really bother me. I see altruism as harmful only if it can be imposed upon me. If someone wants to be altruistic within the context of a free society, good for them. So those who constantly warn of a looming theocracy are, from my perspective, too late. It came from the left, not the right.
-
Can you identify any positive unifying factor or ideology at the base of the leftist movement?
Collectivism.
-
3. Accounts of his life, by those who know him well also prove that he is in fact deeply religious=religious zealot.
If you believe religion is a good thing, there is no reason to be offended by that word by the way. For the life of me, I can't figure out why you would put that in quotation marks, and say supposed, as if you're doubting the fact that he is really religious.
My initial objection was to your linking Bush's faith to his bungling of the Iraq war. I dont think one has anything to do with the other. LBJ mismanaged the Vietnam war, but nobody blames his faith. Perhaps democrats just get a pass on that sort of thing. As for Bush being a religious zealot, do you feel it is possible for a man to be religious and not be a zealot? Is Bush a 'fanatically committed person?' Perhaps to an atheist he might appear to be, but he strikes me as holding pretty common religious beliefs.
Are you saying it's alright to be religious, or have a Christian country (in the name of tradition, of course:) ?I have no problem with it. Now, if you can demonstrate that the current incarnation of Christianity is somehow different or worse than anything America was founded in or has already lived through, then I am open to change my mind.
-
People like Obama, Pelosi and Reed dont happen overnight either. That freight train has been headed down the tracks for more than 30 years. The rise of Christian fundamentalism is a reaction to it. As for Huckabee, he didnt make it, Obama did. Huckabee didnt make it through the Republican party primary, let alone the general election. He ran a good race and was actually a good candidate from the perspective of his ability to communicate his ideas well. You could say that Huckabee lost because of his adherence to Christianity or what might be considered the most radical elements of his party. Obama, on the other hand, won because of his adherence to the most radical elements of his party.Peikoff's only point is that this is a "skating to where the puck is, not where it's going to be."By the time this actually happens, you'll be too late to not suffer the consequences. People like Huckabee don't make the public stage overnight. There is a huge cultural build-up to the happening. And there is evidence that it is and has been happening for the last 30 years.
As for skating to where the puck is going to be, I think Peikoff skated to the wrong spot. It is the left who has, over the last 30 years, come to dominate politics and culture, not the right. As for where the puck is heading (if I may continue the metaphor) if Obama wins and the left increases its control over American life, republicans will attempt to return to what they see as a winning formula--embracing the Christian base. How strong the religious right becomes in the future depends upon how far the left overreaches.
-
That's funny, I had this weird dream about a republican president who is a religious zealot (and as a result managed the war in a manner that ended up killing 5000 american soldiers)
What evidence do you have that it is Bush's supposed 'religious zealotry' that is the cause of his mismanagement of the war?
who's economic policies led to a huge financial crisisWhich policies?
In my strange dream government spending under his presidency went from under 2 trillion/year to 3 trillon+/year, and now we are at a point where no one is calling him an anti-capitalist, because his own party are the ones who are supposed to be against big government.As I said, you can certainly make the case that the republicans have been piss-poor guardians of liberty and capitalism.
The only difference is an ideological one: Obama is a socialist, and he won't go far with that, too many people recognize his ideas as part of a failed ideology. The republican party, however, is controlled by its religious wing, and they are growing in popularity and are gaining courage.I think you are wrong on both counts. Maybe in your dream, you failed to notice that it is the democrats that are likely to control the White House, the Senate, The House, a majority of governorships, state legislatures, print and TV media, academia and Hollywood. It is the same leftist ideology that one might find throughout Europe, the UN, environmental science, and well, everywhere you look. In light of all that, I fail to see the threat posed by the supposed right-wing, theocratic bogeyman.
-
So, while people are voting democrat for practical reasons, the only irrational ideology still growing in America today is religion, mainly of the evangelical variety. If you listen to what they preach (or just play close attention to Bill O’Reilly), socialism is definitely part of the package. Now you will ask: But didn’t you say socialism is dead? No, I said it has been rejected out of practical considerations. What has become clear is that the religious right in America is rejecting reason completely, and is sinking into a deeply irrational, medieval frame of mind, in which neither logic, nor practicality are considered. (that is why we have 5000 dead soldiers in Iraq, and is also why Bush has done nothing to curtail the welfare-state or government spending)
What is also clear, is that the Republican Party has become the political wing of the religious right.
You can certainly make the case that the republicans have been piss-poor guardians of liberty and capitalism, but you cannot make the case that, therefore, democrats are worthy of support. Socialism, the idea of state ownership of business, is dead, but welfare statism is alive and well. And it is the democrats who champion the welfare state, environmentalism, egalitarianism, and rabid anti-capitalism. When Mike Huckabee is president and Falwell and Graham run the house and senate, then I will worry about the phantom menace of theocracy. Until then, I will focus on the real menace of Obama, Pelosi and Reed.
-
They can tell for instance how many people who voted for Bush in last election voted for McCain or Obama in this.
How would they know that? They may know, for instance, that I am a registered republican and that I voted in the last election, but that is all they know. They have no way of knowing who I voted for or whether or not I abstained from voting for president in the last election. For all they know, I voted for Kerry. If you want to get noticed by the major parties, if you want to make a statement, then I suggest people vote for a third party candidate. Look at 2000 and Ralph Nader. What was the message of Nader? That, basically, Gore and the democrats werent liberal enough. (Imagine that!!) Well, the dems got the message. A larger than usual vote for the libertarian party in this election would send a message to republicans that they might want to inject a little more free market, small government type thinking into their platform.
-
I'm concerned with the institution of a theocracy in this country, that's what I'm concerned with.
What makes you think such a thing is even remotely possible?
-
That might be the message you wish to send, but it might not be the message they receive. A voter who has left the top of the ticket blank can be viewed any number of ways. It might be that the voter simply forgot to vote for president, or was incapable of making up his mind. Either way, the voter has made himself irrelevant to the process. I agree with you, though, I dont want Obama to win either. So I am going to do what I can to prevent that from happening. The only way to do that is to vote for McCain.A no-show is interpreted as apathy when they look at it, but going to the polls means you *do* care, you just do not want *either* of the alleged choices you were given. It's a message to both parties that they could pick up another vote with a better candidate. -
I am not so optimistic.
Nor am I. Any health care reform plan that Obama proposes will be re-written by congress, and likely not resemble the original Obama plan at all--but will be even worse. The left wants socialized medicine. If Obama is elected the left will run the government. Anyone who thinks that what remains of our free market health care system will survive his election is only fooling himself. McCain, as bad as he is on many issues, will fight this one
Obama is President
in US Elections 2004/2008/2012/2016
Posted
I dont know how that even begins to make sense. Granted, the right has been a weak defender, but what it is defending against is the ideology of the left. What responsibility for the destruction of this country does the left and its anti-capitalism ideology have in your mind? None?