Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

McCain/Obama Forum 8/16

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

You're the first person I've heard express annoyance with Bush's idiotic facial expressions. They've annoyed me from the get-go. The look you're describing makes me think of, "Does anyone understand what I'm saying, 'cause I sure don't" or "Did I get that right?" He furrows his brow a little, stammers, and tightens his mouth, showing frustration. His other one is where he'll state something, like "The Iraqi people want democracy," punctuated by this chuckle that says, "It's so obvious, I can't believe I have to explain it." But this is his reflexive defense mechanism to an unchecked, invalid premise ("I'll condition my subconscious to treat certain ideas as laughably obvious, so I don't have to think about them.").

You can see a lot of frustration in his facial expressions, going all the way back to 2001. The man is an idiot, doesn't understand his own ideas, can't speak to save his life, and can't hide these facts in his mannerisms. His epistemology is so tortuously misintegrated, it's not even funny. I'm not looking forward to 4-8 years of either of these two monsters, but I can't wait until I don't have to listen to this total fucking moron anymore.

Edited by KurtColville
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Yeah, you're right. I loved when Ayn Rand referred to Nixon as a "big doody-head." It really made people pay attention to her arguments. :wacko:

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, you're right. I loved when Ayn Rand referred to Nixon as a "big doody-head." It really made people pay attention to her arguments. :wacko:

Again, the point is missed. Even if she did call him a "big doody-head", it is immaterial to her arguments. Are you suggesting that if she did have an unkind word, whatever comes after it must be dismissed as revulsive?

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.

OBAMA NATION! (Pronounce it as "abomination!" LOL. Hussien (Pronounce it as "has ties to terrorism" LOL!

:wacko:

You were saying something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting to note that the Supreme Court Justice that Obama said he would not have hired, Clarence Thomas, is an advocate of Objectivism. While he's not an Objectivist himself (he's a Catholic, and pro-life), he's been encouraging his associates to read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and writes warmly about Ayn Rand in his biography. Among other things, he's said: "I tend to really be partial to Ayn Rand, and to the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its interesting to note that the Supreme Court Justice that Obama said he would not have hired, Clarence Thomas, is an advocate of Objectivism. While he's not an Objectivist himself (he's a Catholic, and pro-life), he's been encouraging his associates to read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and writes warmly about Ayn Rand in his biography. Among other things, he's said: "I tend to really be partial to Ayn Rand, and to the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged."

I couldn't agree more with Obama's decisions then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you aiming at?

There's nothing more harmful to the Objectivist movement than those pretending to advocate Objectivism, as it gives people a false idea as to what Objectivism is about. In other words, it makes the guilt by association fallacy more likely and common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd abstain from voting in a few months if I didn't swear to myself I'd vote. So far, it seems to come down to "what to I want less?" War and theocracy, or socialism and... yeah. Socialism. The problem is, is that I have grown more and more suspicious of Obama's promise to get us out of Iraq. I also don't trust McCain to not be cowed into some sort of idiot government clampdown if the economy gets any worse. So, it seems like my vote will be one of hard choices and bad surprises. I may get intot his more alter, but I have class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing more harmful to the Objectivist movement than those pretending to advocate Objectivism, as it gives people a false idea as to what Objectivism is about. In other words, it makes the guilt by association fallacy more likely and common.

Let's cool it here. Clarence Thomas never claimed to be an Objectivist. He is a fan of Ayn Rand. Obama is a mindless drone attempting to belittle a man he could never measure up to. That's what should be obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing more harmful to the Objectivist movement than those pretending to advocate Objectivism, as it gives people a false idea as to what Objectivism is about. In other words, it makes the guilt by association fallacy more likely and common.

There's nothing more harmful to the Objectivist movement than those rejecting people who are merely partial to Ayn Rand. For what it's worth, I too doubt Thomas even claims to be an advocate of Objectivism.

Those two statements (my bold) are not contradictory. People who like some of Rand's ideas are people we can cooperate with on an issue-by-issue basis, adding their voices and votes to ours. However, if they claim to speak for Objectivism while actually not being so, it can only lead to "brand confusion", and the need to work overtime to undo the damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Those two statements (my bold) are not contradictory. People who like some of Rand's ideas are people we can cooperate with on an issue-by-issue basis, adding their voices and votes to ours. However, if they claim to speak for Objectivism while actually not being so, it can only lead to "brand confusion", and the need to work overtime to undo the damage.

Absolutely right! :)

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...