Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


whYNOT last won the day on January 18

whYNOT had the most liked content!


About whYNOT

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    tony garland
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Occupation

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    South Africa; "Where liberty dwells, there is my country

Recent Profile Visitors

10776 profile views
  1. Skirting the point again. Yes/no: Do you think the Democrats are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state?
  2. Quoting you: "Sounds good about DC, the people there are citizens and deserve to vote". Aside from not making head or tail of this (I mean, why not declare San Francisco a state with two more senators- the people deserve a vote...) - you haven't noticed the urgency of which Sowell was most aware - A Vote at the Crossroads. Does it matter to you that the Democrats clearly want to extend their power, with such ploys? For what ends, I asked. There is the connection: You make out as if everything is normal, excusable or completely justifiable (i.e. open immigration). Sowell indicate
  3. Um. Many conservative thinkers have lately been doing the best thinking? They can rise above the personae of public figures - i.e. "Trump" v. "Biden" - and identify the political/moral essentials? That they don't take their emotions to be tools of cognition? That they are not subservient to the mainstream media's propaganda?
  4. Rather dated, imo. The left, as a matter of fact, already have some control of "our" boardrooms - and will now do so further. Regulations, taxation and social activists getting products banned - are just a few aspects. The right are -objectively - justified in opposing open immigration, a rationalist idea which overlooks the context of a welfare state, affirmative action, wage laws, etc. which would penalize present American citizens and workers. And "our" bedrooms? I personally know of several conservatives and read of dozens more who have openly embraced that their sons and daughters, sister
  5. All is well! Nothing to worry about. Tra la la... Why are conservative-libertarians more aware of reality? https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/columnists/thomas-sowell-a-vote-at-the-crossroads/article_e34abb8c-933b-5650-b0c0-5d43496aeeb7.html
  6. There is ¬everything¬ in their rhetoric, by pols and media, and too, the social media giants, to suggest they will take the US as far Left as they can. Do not be misled, the signs are there when they speak openly about doing away with the filibuster, bringing in DC and Puerto Rico (less probable) as new and Democrat states, and increasing migration, that they want further powers and prolonged, in their minds, permanent, control: To what end? Don't fall for "But they don't mean it!". Next comes, " Even if they mean it they won't do it". Last, "even if they would, they can't do it". Those w
  7. Drooling seen on CNN: https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6223009033001
  8. Aha. Then what about spreading the idea OF spreading germs? That's the deep level of thinking the world has sunk to.
  9. Understood, but an option that wasn't on the table. This unholy alliance comprising the new Democrat Party could have been broken up, probably permanently, with one more Republican victory. This would have heralded a more moderate political return. As it stands, who can tell how far Left they will go?
  10. There's some merit to a certain amount of innocent incompetence above cynically manipulative efficiency. When I find that dichotomy I side with the innocents.
  11. I think you guys fall into two camps: A. Pissed the Trump didn't win. B. Glad that he didn't win. The trouble is the A's blame Trump himself for his defeat, thinking that a president has infinite power, sort of mystical omnipotence, while the vote of the majority is secondary or even superfluous. That notion forgets that the dominant philosophy of the ¬people¬ is what always counts most. That is where Objectivists came in, or didn't. That tide has turned. Trump cannot be faulted for the nation's philosophical transition. Or some would, I'm sure. Which leads to the B's - I hope y
  12. Your small amount of psychological analysis is understandable but rather misplaced, I think. And how you draw a connection from "giving up the legal fight" - to "expressing hatred of the judicial system" - is beyond me! You could not rather view that as ¬respect¬ for the judicial system? We can sit around nit-picking Trump's actions, intentions and motives forever. No one else in history has ever been analyzed as much. His political strategems were ill-advised or naive - meaning - to the Trump cynics out there- that he was somewhat of an innocent in the ways of dirty politics, from his o
  13. Next, in a totalitarian state, spreading ideas will be actionable. (Oh, wait ...) Is there a face mask to protect against a thought pandemic? The irrational is the insane or the impossible, I believe Rand said, Michael. Try to prove in court that it was my germs you caught off a door handle. Then, that it was my negligence or malice at fault. If anyone wants, who and what stops them from going round masked their whole day and every day of their lives? Just leave me out.
  14. Easier to attribute the basest motivation to Trump, i.e. self-enriching and self-aggrandizing, than to consider, just for a moment that his top value might be his country and all he is, warts and all - and is doing is for that end? That is "arbitrary" and skeptical-subjective. We shall see. Obvious is that the Democrats and their propaganda arm, the MSM, are and will, even after his departure be going after Trump with everything they've got, to try to block any chance of his (or the GOP's) re-emergence. They are terrified of losing their power again but also need revenge on him and h
  15. "Lie: intentional false statement". A guy says he saw a plane flew over, the other says, no, it was a bird. And proves as much. Was the first "lying" in order to - intentionally - deceive, or merely mistaken? Get it? "He kept the money". This to you is proof of intent to personally profit? Not for future campaigning in order to overturn the Democrats? Maybe Trump saw the folly in throwing more money at making "his cases stick". Maybe a Republican revival could use the donations? Do you believe they are going straight into his pocket? https://www.politico.com/n
  • Create New...