Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

McCain/Obama Forum 8/16

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

From AP

LAKE FOREST, Calif. - Republican presidential candidate John McCain says the nation's greatest moral shortcoming is its failure to "devote ourselves to causes greater than our self-interests."

Barack Obama, said America's greatest moral failure is its insufficient help to the disadvantaged, especially victims of racism, sexism and poverty.

They both sound equally evil to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is most bothersome about this Rick Warren forum is that Obama and McCain agreed to do it. The guy is an evangelical christian preacher. I'm not saying he has any less rights than ourselves or anyone else, but, doing this perpetuates the significance of christanity and further establishes it in the mainstream political discourse.

Also, I was strongly disappointed that Bob Barr was not invited.

Edited by Colonel Rebel
Link to post
Share on other sites
What is most bothersome about this Rick Warren forum is that Obama and McCain agreed to do it. The guy is an evangelical christian preacher. I'm not saying he has any less rights than ourselves or anyone else, but, doing this perpetuates the significance of christanity and further establishes it in the mainstream political discourse.

Also, I was strongly disappointed that Bob Barr was not invited.

Obama's mother was an atheist so I don't know how religious he really is. America is a christian nation so maybe he is trying to get the christian vote.

Edited by dadmonson
Link to post
Share on other sites
In what way is he nuts? Policy? Philosophy? Something else?

As far as I can tell, he is nuts across the board. I don't have time to go and find it and paste the pertinent sections at this point, but the Washington Post Style section today had a feature story on him. Off the top of my head, he was a hard-right Republican until joining the Libertarian Party in 2006. Some of his policy positions in the 90's were awful, and some of his current positions are awful. I will look up the article later. In the meantime, you can find it on washingtonpost.com.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean that anyone who is the Democratic or Republican nominee is equally nuts simply by party association? Or is being Libertarian nuttier than those other two parties??

As far as McCain/Obama go, they do sound equally bad in the original quote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to give props to McCain for this quote over the weekend at that church:

MCCAIN: I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. (applause) I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as quote "rich." My friends, who want to raise their taxes and raise their payroll taxes. Let's keep taxes low. So I think if you're just talking about income, how about five million? (laughter) But seriously, I don't think you can -- I don't think seriously that -- the point is that I'm trying to make here seriously, and I'm sure that comment will be distorted. (laughter) But the point is, the point is, the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.

I was shocked when I read this, but the fact that he said it and with such clarity tells me he is better than I'd thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to give props to McCain for this quote over the weekend at that church:

I was shocked when I read this, but the fact that he said it and with such clarity tells me he is better than I'd thought.

You want to give him props for what? Being able to say "taxes are bad" and "I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth"? As far as economics and free markets are involved, McLame does not have even a marginal understanding of how it works. He, in fact, has said as much. So, if he gets any props, it's because he can recite talking points.

This debate was a sham as far as I'm concerned. Having watched it again in bits, the sole purpose of this was for McShame to pander to the christian-right (or left, in my book), and re-assure them that he's a christian 'conservative'. That he supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade, that he wants to give the theocrats more control and influence, etc... There can be , in my opinion, no other way to understand why this debate even occured.

But, I'm sure my comments will fall on deaf ears as people continue to debate whether it is better to support a socialist or a fascist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You want to give him props for what? Being able to say "taxes are bad" and "I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth"? As far as economics and free markets are involved, McLame does not have even a marginal understanding of how it works. He, in fact, has said as much. So, if he gets any props, it's because he can recite talking points.

The way he said it shows an understanding of the issue, of justice, and of the American dream.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair point. Theatricality always serves as proof of understanding. Of course, I'm more demanding than this. I would like to see...you know... a record of his understanding. I think the phrase concludes as, "...walk the walk."

I with you on that. His actions speak louder than his words, and his actions have not been pro-capitalist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You want to give him props for what? Being able to say "taxes are bad" and "I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth"? As far as economics and free markets are involved, McLame does not have even a marginal understanding of how it works. He, in fact, has said as much. So, if he gets any props, it's because he can recite talking points.

This debate was a sham as far as I'm concerned. Having watched it again in bits, the sole purpose of this was for McShame to pander to the christian-right (or left, in my book), and re-assure them that he's a christian 'conservative'. That he supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade, that he wants to give the theocrats more control and influence, etc... There can be , in my opinion, no other way to understand why this debate even occured.

But, I'm sure my comments will fall on deaf ears as people continue to debate whether it is better to support a socialist or a fascist.

True, but I will give him credit for this. To hear a politician claim that he does not want to rape and pillage the rich is like hearing a dog bark the alphabet; ultimately not impressive, unless you consider the context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
McShame

Ok, can we at least be mature enough in this fourm to not act like 3rd graders? If you want do disagree with McCain or Obama or whoever, then do so. But it hurts your argument when you can't display an appropriate level of maturity without resorting to absurd and pointless name calling. Do you think it makes you sound clever becase you can rhyme John McCain's name with another English word? It doesn't.

But, I'm sure my comments will fall on deaf ears

See what I just said above for a possible reason of why that may be.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, can we at least be mature enough in this fourm to not act like 3rd graders? If you want do disagree with McCain or Obama or whoever, then do so. But it hurts your argument when you can't display an appropriate level of maturity without resorting to absurd and pointless name calling. Do you think it makes you sound clever becase you can rhyme John McCain's name with another English word? It doesn't.

See what I just said above for a possible reason of why that may be.

Thanks for adding nothing to the thread except a personal attack.

On second thought, whether I mock his name because he's a self-described conservative that isn't one at all, is immaterial to whether I have made a valid argument. Likewise, it would make just as little sense to say that, "your improper use of punctuation marks hurts your argument". I hope you can see past that, and I hope it doesn't hinder you from providing a responsible post. This said, would you disagree with the fact that John has painted himself as an economic conservative despite his track record?

Edited by Colonel Rebel
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am probably going to start having nightmares once November rolls around, but Obama's plan to stimulate the economy by taxing the oil companies even further is literally a recipe for economic disaster, and thus makes me view McCain as the slower road to hell, unless he has a plan just as bad. But it is still early, of course. The convention is in ten days, I hear.

All in all I'm surprised and rather depressed at how childish this whole race is, on all sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was shocked when I read this, but the fact that he said it and with such clarity tells me he is better than I'd thought.

That doesn't sound clear at all. It sounds almost Bushian in it's vagueness - like he has a few buzz phrases memorized, and just keeps saying them over and over again, trying to force himself and the rest of the audience to believe what he's saying without any deep examination. All that's missing is Bush's trademark "do I get a cookie?" look everytime he says something that sounds smart.

Edited by brian0918
Link to post
Share on other sites
makes me view McCain as the slower road to hell, unless he has a plan just as bad. But it is still early, of course.

The ultimate goal for each candidate, all along, has been to garner as many votes as possible from across the spectrum, while hiding their true intentions as much as possible. Thus we have McCain's contradictory quotes (from pam and Thales).

The value of political promises has degraded hundreds of times faster than inflation can account for.

Edited by brian0918
Link to post
Share on other sites
The ultimate goal for each candidate, all along, has been to garner as many votes as possible from across the spectrum, while hiding their true intentions as much as possible. Thus we have McCain's contradictory quotes (from pam and Thales).

The value of political promises has degraded hundreds of times faster than inflation can account for.

Excellent point. So, initially, it seems the choice is between a man whose motives we know (Obama) and one whose motives are intentionally obscured with pandering buzz words (McCain)...

One must also consider how badly Bush has bastardized the notion of 'free market's" and "capitalism"....and understand that McCain can only make it worse. So long as people think 'capitalism' and "Republicans" are synonymous words, the people will continue attacking the big-government debt-spending "capitalism" that this country has seen over the last 7 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't sound clear at all. It sounds almost Bushian in it's vagueness -

Words mean things. He is saying that people have the right to get rich and that it's good to get rich. He's saying that redistribution of wealth is wrong. I realize this isn't deep philosophically, but it's not vague either, and what he is saying is good.

The problem will come when he later makes contradictory statements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...