fletch
-
Posts
549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by fletch
-
-
Obama is a Marxist and a passionate one. He means it when he says that he will bring change. To expect moderation is a big stretch at this point.
FDR and LBJ had huge democratic majorities and we are still living with programs created under the New Deal and The Great Society. If Obama has equally large majorities in congress, a financial crisis, a fawning press and an adoring Hollywood to spread his propaganda, there is no telling what he might do. Expecting moderation is about as likely as an organized republican resistance. The best way to fight this man is to vote against him. Unfortunately, that means voting for McCain.
-
Your life is the standard of value, that doesnt mean it will be your highest value. I value nothing higher than the lives of my children. If it was necessary to surrender my life or my freedom so that they might live, I would do it without hesitation. I dont think that makes me an altruist.I wouldn't accept the premise that your loved one could be such a high value to you that you would sacrifice your freedom or even life if it meant that loved one living. That's altruism, as I'm sure you will recognize, because you're putting a higher value on someone else than on your own life. -
Unbridled capitalism? Has such a thing even come close to existing in the Uk in the last 100 years? When is someone over there going to put a bridle on the socialist horse?
-
I just know that all wealthy people aren't the most productive like most of you claim on this forum(And yes there is evidence of this).
Then you might want to produce this evidence of yours. I dont think I have heard anyone on this site claim that all wealthy people are the most productive. In fact, the opposite is often true. Look at the Kennedy's for example. They are wealthy and have produced nothing. Most of them would be hard-pressed to identify the business end of a plunger.
-
They are both morally wrong, but taking cocaine does not infringe the rights of any other individual, while lying to your girlfriend does. Lying is a form of force (specifically, of fraud), while taking cocaine is not.
Does a person have a right to the truth? As far as the sexual exclusivity of BF/GF relationship, it is largely a matter of trust. Perhaps it should fall more under the lines of caveat emptor.
-
"I don't believe that was the intent of the program."
The intent of the program was to provide a free service. Why is this guy shocked that people would line up with their hands out? You are right, this guy aint too bright.
-
When I was a teenager, I took a driver's ed class which was truly excellent. At one point, the instructor described some hypothetical traffic crises; one was having the brakes go out in one's car while traveling downhill at a fair rate of speed. He asked the class to name ideas as to what one might do in such a situation.
After a few tepid responses, the instructor suggested sideswiping parked cars as a means of bringing one's own car to a stop. This agitated several members of the group: That's destruction of property! But you'd pay for the damage, the instructor countered. It didn't matter. He raised the stakes: "You're facing imminent death if you don't do it." They wouldn't budge. To these young people, respecting property rights was an out-of-context absolute — a moral commandment to be followed regardless of circumstance.
Damaging parked cars to protect ones own life is one thing, and it would not free you from the responsibility of compensating the owners of those cars for the damage you caused. That being said, would you advocate plowing into a crowd of pedestrians in order to bring your own car to a stop?
-
It is also an attempt to change the focus. The real issue here is not Joe the plumber or what he believes, but how Obama answered his question. Obama was caught in a moment of candor when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth." Americans seem to have accepted the idea that the rich should pay more to fund what they see as the proper role of government. What most Americans don't accept is the idea of taking money from one person to cut a check to another. Direct wealth redistribution is not something that Americans want or agree with--at least not yet. To hide this flub, Obama and his friends in the media are smearing Joe the plumber. This is a major gaff, and should be the only focus of the McCain campaign for the remaining 3 weeks. By accidentally revealing his true intentions, Obama has handed the keys to the White House to McCain. What remains to be seen is whether or not McCain can find the lock.They want to discredit the man in an attempt to invalidate the point he made. -
I wonder why that is. Oh wait, I know. Don't skeptics love to talk about the Little Ice Age? When did that end, i.e., when did things start to warm up? Could it be around the time of the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? I'll leave you to piece this together yourself.
"The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval Warm Period." According to your logic, was that Medieval Warm Period the result of the industrial boom that everyone associates with the medieval times?
-
I will be voting for McCain, though I have no particular desire to see a McCain presidency. I guess I am just going to look at it as a protest vote of sorts--a protest vote against an Obama presidency.First, I believe that voting "for" a candidate implies that you desire him to attain the office he seeks. -
Here is an article by Stanley Kurtz that ties Obama, ACORN, Ayers, the CRA and the current economic crisis together:
http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3566/pub_detail.asp
At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago's Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN's way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we've recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis -
Here's where I would say it is not like Capitalism. In a Capitalist society, new values are being created. More wealth is being created. Every "player" in a capitalist society doesn't just carve up a finite pie and eventually leave someone with no pie.
In poker, there is a finite pie (assuming you are playing table stakes). Money is merely changing hands. The total pot size never really gets bigger, the wealth just gets redistributed to the best player.
Yes? No?
Yes. I would say the most significant difference between poker and capitalism is that capitalism is an exchange of values and poker is not. Usually, the one that walks away from the poker table with the most chips is either the one who has the better luck or is better at deceiving his opponents. Luck and deception are not the hallmarks of a capitialist system. Linking poker to the free market is exactly the wrong way to sell capitalism.
-
An Obama victory will almost certainly include a democrat domination of congress as well. There have been three other democratic presidents in recent years whose party controlled congress by wide majorities as well: Roosevelt, LBJ, and Carter. We all know how much damage those three caused to liberty and capitalism. Even Clinton in his first two years with a democratic congress tried to jam socialized medicine down our throats. So, yeah, the idea of Obama, Reed and Pelosi running the government for the next few years is not something I can support. So I will hold my nose and vote for McCain.That's surely debatable. The only candidate in this race I'd call "evil" would be Chuck Baldwin. Other than that, I think everyone else still have their pros and cons. If you look at it like that, it's simply a matter of prioritizing certain values and issues, and making a mental matrix to pick which candidate's set of mixed principles and baggage is right for the job.Divided government seems to work best. Bush is another example. It was the democrats taking control of congress that finally forced him to change tactics in Iraq. Obama would not worry me as much if there was still republican control of congress. They might actually force him to explore for more oil, lower taxes, cut spending, and balance the budget. But total democratic control in times of economic crisis could bring the New Deal II. There would be no exploration into what brought about the economic collapse, it would be laid at the feet of the free market...again. Democrats have already laid the groundwork by pointing the finger at deregulation and greedy corporate CEO's. McCain, not bright enough to realize he is dooming himself in the process, goes right along with them.
-
There is a much bigger picture.
Exactly. Anyone waiting around for the opportunity to vote for the 'greater of two goods' is in for a lifetime of disappointment. Every election is a choice between the lesser of two evils and this one is no exception. But which is more evil? The one that rigidly adheres to a set of evil principles? Or the one that seems unprincipled, undisciplined and void of any real political ideology? I say the former.
In my mind, leaving the choice for president blank is a bad idea. A 'Non' vote is a sign of indecision, not the other way around. It will not succeed in sending any kind of message and will only serve to marginalize Objectivists more than they already are. If you want to send a message to republicans, vote libertarian. If you want to send a message of total disgust, do as someone else has mentioned, write in John Galt, or David Odden for that matter. But vote 'for' someone.
-
But the principle is the same: When the life of someone you love is at stake, you do whatever you can to save them. Other people be damned, "morality" be damned — and you worry about restitution, fallout and clean-up later.
If we accept that the idea that Objectivist principles, morality and individual rights can be cast aside in emergency situations in favor of sacrificing others to self--altruism, have we not rendered such values as worthless? It seems to me that emergencies are where one's principles are needed most. If we are willing to kill others to get the medicine we need for a sick child, would it not make more sense to just socialize medicine and avoid any potential need to go on some future murderous rampage?
Note: Not advocating socialized medicine.
-
I would refer you to that Procol Harem quote in your signature as it suits you quite well.
All your response is utter nonsense.
I want someone who is intelligent and insightful to run, not some buffoon whose only claim to fame is running a state with the population of Boston.
I cannot understand how it is you could support the Iraq war. It has drained the economy of billions while resulting in the emboldening of Al Qaeda and Iran.
The Bush administration is a total failure. I cannot wait for Obama to whip their sorry asses in this election.
As for you, may you wallow in your own idiocy.
And may you wallow in the pretense that that post of yours in any way resembled an argument.
-
True she is all of those things but that is not sufficient for a person to be qualified for a position of American president. I don't think she is stupid but she lacks knowledge and it shows. Watching her I had an impression, on more than one occasion, that she did not understand the question at all. It was like watching a beauty pageant contestant stumbling on a question - pretty, likable, but completely off.
I agree with that completely. But I dont think those things reflect badly upon her. The inablity to answer certain questions, and her lack of foreign policy knowledge tells us more about McCain. After all, he is the one that plucked her out of obscurity and thrust her into the limelight. She needs a good performance thursday night. If she stays on the attack, she will be alright. But was she the most qualified person to be on the ticket with McCain? Hell no. And you are right, it shows.
-
One of the most glaring contradictions in the Bible is the idea that an all-knowing God somehow didnt notice that serpent slinking around The Garden.
-
Palin opens herself up to attacks by her stupidity.
You have really got it in for this woman dont you. I hate to say it, but you come across like some pimpley-faced high school nerd badmouthing the Prom Queen because she's hot and you're not. Calling her stupid is not exactly something that passes for substantive argument. Everything about her is really quite American. She is a very pleasant, likeable, hardworking, mother and citizen politician. If you disagree with her views, then disagree with her views. The name calling and insults only serve to make you look small, not her.
We will learn alot about her during her debate thursday night. Hopefully, she will not spend the evening attempting to show that she can stand toe to toe with Biden on knowledge of foreign policy. She cant. She should admit as much and move on. Besides, the only reason Obama picked Biden was because of Obama's lack of foreign policy knowledge. Pointing that out would be a good way of deflecting attention away from her lack of foreign policy experience to Obama's.
One thing I hope she does that no one else has bothered to do is attack Obama on the one issue he has based the whole of his campaign upon--that he opposed the Iraq war from the start. The proper answer to that ridicules claim to fame is a resounding "So What?" At the time the war with Iraq was being debated, Obama was in the Illinois State Senate with no more foreign policy experience than Palin has today. Not only that, he was not getting security briefings. He knew what the rest of the world knew about Saddam. At the time, everyone believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMD and, in the aftermath of 9/11, concluded he was a threat to US security. What he expects us to believe is that he, in the absense of knowledge, made the right decision while many of his Democratic and Republican counterparts like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, and yes, Biden voted for the war in Iraq. Contrary to what Obama would like everyone to believe, his decision to oppose the Iraq war was made out of ignorance of the facts in the absense of any accountability, not because of some brilliant political foresight.
-
I think we have to thank, at least in part, the stupidity of the house leadership in general and Nancy Pelosi in particular. Any number of house Dems stepped up to the mic and basically labelled this bill as a repudiation of Republican ideology--then called for a bipartisan vote. Passing this bill would have been political suicide for Republicans. At least they were smart enough to realize that fact.
-
It's a set of three seminal lectures by two prominent Objectivist intellectuals, available on the web for free. If you're not interested enough to listen to them -- to hear what they have to say for themselves, to understand the full context of their conclusion about that 20 year window -- then any discussion of the matter with you would be pointless. I would summarize, you would misunderstand then raise some invalid objection, I would attempt to correct your misunderstanding and answer your objection, you would misunderstand and object more, and blah blah blah. In the meantime, I could have written a slew of letters to the editor -- something that is, undoubtedly, far far more important to me. And you could have listened to the lectures for yourself. I've seen that happen time and again, and it's a stupid, pointless waste of time.
That's all I'm going to say on this matter. I've got real work to do, and I've already wasted enough time.
Looks like someone is making a run at this year's most condescending post award.
-
Of course, the Republicans have again come up short. While they showed some initial promise, they are clearly incapable of sticking to their guns.
We will have to see how the final vote goes, but I suspect you will see a substantial number of Republicans vote against it. The truth is, Democrats control both house of Congress and could have passed this along to a willing president without any Republican support. The congressional Republicans were screwed from the start when you had a Republican administration champion a plan like this in the first place.
-
If difficulty in making a mortgage payment will bring the government in to renegotiate your deal, wont that encourage more people to have difficulty making their mortgage payment?But also, the government will have the power to re-negotiate mortgages that people cannot pay back, which will defer the payments that much longer. -
Do you have some evidence of this looming theocracy? And how will it work, exactly? Is McCain going to be taking orders from the Vatican? Will democrat majorities in the House and Senate be powerless to stop the religious coup? Or are you just on some unsubstantiated, fear-fueled rant?Are you NOT concerned that your rights will be relinquished under a Religious Right theocracy?
Objectivists for Obama?
in US Elections 2004/2008/2012/2016
Posted
Obama is not Clinton. And McCain can only be a savior in so far as he saves us from Obama. My vote for McCain is not a vote for McCain it is a vote against Obama.