Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Obama's Anti-Americanism

Rate this topic


Publius
 Share

Recommended Posts

He is saying is that "wealth redistribution" is not guaranteed by the constitution, so it would constitute a radical shift in the way we view the constitution for a court to require wealth to be redistributed. That says nothing about what a legislator or executive can do in regards to positive public programs, and the resulting behavior of lower courts. The essential point: The constitution is such that it restrains the government, the Warren court wasn't radical because it's ruling are compatible with this view.

You are still completely ignoring his obvious tone and his previous actions. He was not making a remark or a hypothetical suggestion as to how best redistribute wealth. He is speaking from experience. He is clearly implying(as clear as he ever is) that the courts did not go far enough. I am curious what motivation you have for continually disregarding it.

Positive public programs are neither constitutionally required nor flatly unconstitutional, they are a matter of legislation.

Now as to Obama on property rights, here he is in his book Audacity of Hope: "Our Constitution places the ownership of private property at the very heart of our system of liberty.... The result of this business culture has been a prosperity that's unmatched in human history.... Our greatest asset has been our system of social organization, a system that for generations has encouraged constant innovation, individual initiative and the efficient allocation of resources."

Do you honestly not see the direct contradiction in these statements? To say nothing of the contradiction between this last statement and his actual actions?

Sorry, but if Objectivists believe a statist is about the worst thing you can be in politics, I find it profoundly hypocritical that someone would post a quote from one of the most notable statists in American history. At best it is poor form, at worst it is akin to celebrating a quote from FDR or Keynes.

Again, you are ignoring the essentials of the words. More clearly, it is possible to agree with one thing a person said and not another. I for example, agree with Obama's utilitarian defense of capitalism whereas I disagree with his other anti capitalist statements and actions.

You are blaming consistent people for the inconsistencies of others they are required to deal with. Why do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is clear to me that it is you who are ignoring the context of the entire constitutional convention and the squabbles that took place. Yes the Constitution limits the powers of the government, nobody would dispute that. But can you possibly believe that the founding fathers saw themselves as omniscient enough to decide what actions would be needed by the government on into the future to ensure the general welfare? They left this purposely vague for a reason, while still limiting the government's power to limit people's freedoms with the Bill or Rights and the checks and balances system.

So you say, but the evidence points in a different direction. Madison in Federalist 41 addresses the issue of the 'general welfare clause':

"It has been urged and echoed that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States,' amounts to sn unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense and the general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstrution.

Had no other enumeration of definition of the powers of congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objections might have some color for it...."

In short, Madison is saying that the general welfare clause is a general expression that is then defined by specific powers. As he later puts it:

"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

What you are doing disregarding the particular enumerated powers and focusing on the general statement. That was clearly not the intent. The idea was to do the opposite. If the founders wished the Constitution to be vague as you suggest, they could have wrapped up the whole Constitutional Convention in a matter of moments with the following declaration:

We the people hereby authorize this and future congresses to provide for the general welfare however they choose to define it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are still completely ignoring his obvious tone and his previous actions. He was not making a remark or a hypothetical suggestion as to how best redistribute wealth. He is speaking from experience. He is clearly implying(as clear as he ever is) that the courts did not go far enough. I am curious what motivation you have for continually disregarding it.

Considering that he explicitly said that the courts are not there to decide such public policy, I find it quite bizarre that you continue to insist that he advocated for it.

Do you honestly not see the direct contradiction in these statements?

Not at all. Feel free to enlighten me though.

What you are doing disregarding the particular enumerated powers and focusing on the general statement. That was clearly not the intent. The idea was to do the opposite. If the founders wished the Constitution to be vague as you suggest, they could have wrapped up the whole Constitutional Convention in a matter of moments with the following declaration:

We the people hereby authorize this and future congresses to provide for the general welfare however they choose to define it.

That would be ignoring the entire remainder of the document, which limits quite significantly what the government can do to provide for the general welfare.

Keep in mind Madison as president did approve money for national infrastructure, because he thought it was in the general welfare. The argument we are having is the same one Madison and Hamilton had over 200 years ago. Although I'm sure even Madison would cringe at your severely limited interpretation of state power. Let's also bring Hamilton into the discussion, because he was the main driver of the more liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause. In Federalist 36: "Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"

The point is there is no definitive way to say what "the founding fathers" believed, because they disagreed. And that is essentially the point here, that the founding fathers were not of one mind on such matters. We're not even taking into account that most of this is moot anyway because the Congress justifies most of its power through the use of the Commerce Clause anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No... in this quote Obama expresses his criticism. He finds it regretful that it did not. He wishes it did.

It is clear to me that you are an intellectually dishonest person. Our exchange here is done.

Really, Sophia? Do you have Obama on the record saying that he wishes it to be so? Did he say, anywhere in that interview, that he explicitly wishes it be so? In his exact words? It would be something like "I wish..." or "It should be like...." or "In my opinion the government should..."

Because, frankly, you just made that up. You said he what his intentions and thoughts are without citing a single instance of that being the case. Do you even know what being "intellectually dishonest" means? It doesn't mean someone disagrees with you. It's what you did that is intellectually dishonest.

Also, the link you posted was a edited version of the interview made by someone who clearly wants you to think a certain way about the words spoken there because it says something along the lines of "He says it's a tragedy that wealth wasn't redistributed to African-Americans"

Please post something credible that gives the entire context. Like a transcript from the station. That would be intellectually honest of you.

I'm still waiting with bated breath for your response to this!

I think it's funny that you made a post like this. I also think it's funny that you expect people to just do as you command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's funny that you made a post like this.

Funny, but true. And, come to think of it, it's not just in the essay--I have never said what I disagreed with Obama on. I am not in the business of conducting an intellectual debate with Obama. He's not that kind of man.

I also think it's funny that you expect people to just do as you command.

Right, now stop whining and make me a coffee! :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's funny that you made a post like this. I also think it's funny that you expect people to just do as you command.

I think that it's less that he expects people to do as he commands and more that he hopes that people on an objectivist discussion board, especially this one, would have enough fortitude and integrity to attempt to defend their own assertions when questioned. That someone here would persist in this troll like behavior of making bold and inflammatory, unsupported remarks and then ignore all criticism , across multiple threads, is both juvenile and tiresome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that he explicitly said that the courts are not there to decide such public policy, I find it quite bizarre that you continue to insist that he advocated for it.

I don't insist that he advocated for using the courts to accomplish his goal of wealth redistribution. I am arguing that he advocates wealth redistribution itself, through any means necessary. This includes grass roots, social disobedience, and legislation, primarily. Do you understand and/or agree with this much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. Feel free to enlighten me though.

Really? So in the first statement he explains the process by which one can(and he has) achieved wealth redistribution(not free) and in the second, which you provided, he praises the free market for how much wealth it has created. Is that more clear? If not maybe you would be willing to break down your confusion a little for me. Say for example, maybe you do not see a contradiction between socialism and capitalism. I ask because I am beginning to feel that there is something far more different between our views on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have Obama on the record saying that he wishes it to be so? Did he say, anywhere in that interview, that he explicitly wishes it be so? In his exact words? It would be something like "I wish..." or "It should be like...." or "In my opinion the government should..."
By "it", I assume you mean wealth redistribution? If so, are you saying that Obama is not in favor of wealth redistribution? Or, are you saying that one cannot conclude that from that particular interview?

BTW: This thread suffers from being based on the very ill-defined term "anti-American". For instance, slavery was allowed by the constitution, but would be utterly anti-American in the way the term was used by Sophia.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, Sophia? Do you have Obama on the record saying that he wishes it to be so? Did he say, anywhere in that interview, that he explicitly wishes it be so?

Yes he did - he called the fact that the civil rights movement did not go that far a tragedy. Do you have issues with understanding English?

BTW I listened to the full 4h interview which is easily found on the internet (took me less than a minute) and the meaning of this youtube clip is not changed when you consider all of the context of what has been said.

And Mammon since then Obama's speeches and actions further provide evidence for this wish and goal of economic equality.

Do you even know what being "intellectually dishonest" means?

Two aspects of the concept apply here:

- the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true or has not performed rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position.

This is in reference to Publius claims about American Constitution.

- the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context

This is in reference to the Publius evasion of the meaning of Obama's statments especially in light of Obama's words from other sources and his proposed economic plans.

Also, the link you posted was a edited version of the interview made by someone who clearly wants you to think a certain way about the words spoken there because it says something along the lines of "He says it's a tragedy that wealth wasn't redistributed to African-Americans"

Mammon - some free advice - check the facts first before posting.

--------------------

I find it funny (yet not surprising) how Obama supporters act as if they don't understand English. It is my second language and yet I have not trouble seeing the deliberately ambigous language used, the double speak, the use of euphemisms to obscure the meaning and thus appear less offensive to the American values, the double entendres. Somehow all of this lost to Obama supporters. The evasion is massive - they only see what they want to see - what fits with their emotional reaction to his promiss of hope.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread suffers from being based on the very ill-defined term "anti-American".

I think most people would define it as "holding ideas contrary to America's founding principles" (which is probably why Publius is trying to make us believe that America's founding principles, including Jefferson's ideas and the Constitution, included a great degree of statism). In the essay, though, I contrasted it with "un-American," arguing that while most of the 20th-century Presidents were already un-American, Obama is beyond un-American: he doesn't simply hold ideas contrary to America's founding principles, as, say, FDR did, but is an outright enemy of what America stands for. FDR was Socialist enough, but--granting him all the benefit of the doubt one can muster--one could still imagine him wanting America to prosper, but believing that socialism was the path to that prosperity. One could say that FDR (and Kennedy, and Bush, etc.) still aimed at making Americans free, i.e. their rights respected, but did many things that were in violation of those rights because they were taught that freedom required having those things done to you. Obama, on the other hand, rejects prosperity and freedom as moral ideals to strive for, and is actively working to destroy them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people would define it as "holding ideas contrary to America's founding principles" (which is probably why Publius is trying to make us believe that America's founding principles, including Jefferson's ideas and the Constitution, included a great degree of statism). In the essay, though, I contrasted it with "un-American," arguing that while most of the 20th-century Presidents were already un-American, Obama is beyond un-American: he doesn't simply hold ideas contrary to America's founding principles, as, say, FDR did, but is an outright enemy of what America stands for. FDR was Socialist enough, but--granting him all the benefit of the doubt one can muster--one could still imagine him wanting America to prosper, but believing that socialism was the path to that prosperity. One could say that FDR (and Kennedy, and Bush, etc.) still aimed at making Americans free, i.e. their rights respected, but did many things that were in violation of those rights because they were taught that freedom required having those things done to you. Obama, on the other hand, rejects prosperity and freedom as moral ideals to strive for, and is actively working to destroy them.

I don't see how FDR and Obama are distinguishable in their goals. Obama has not said he wants to wreck the progress of America. He hasn't said anything like that. His political philosophy is pretty closely tied in with the FDR administration, so if you want to say Obama is out to destroy America, you must believe the same of FDR.

Obama isn't some boogey man out to wreck America. Hey may well do it, but I don't think he wants to. He is as contradictory to our founding principles as George Bush was, as Carter and LBJ and FDR and Wilson were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one major difference between the realities of FDR and Obama. In 1945 (when FDR was leaving office - and certainly before) the true nature and consequences of socialism were not fully known based on experience. It was not until the last quarter of the twentieth century that it became apparent just how much destruction it brings. Obama does not deserve the benefit of the doubt one may give FDR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't insist that he advocated for using the courts to accomplish his goal of wealth redistribution. I am arguing that he advocates wealth redistribution itself, through any means necessary. This includes grass roots, social disobedience, and legislation, primarily. Do you understand and/or agree with this much?

You said: "He is clearly implying(as clear as he ever is) that the courts did not go far enough." That's why I said you were misreading the quote and the context of the interview. You were defending Sophia's take on the interview, and she is still insisting that he said in the interview, not outside of it, that he wanted the court to be more involved in deciding redistributive public policy. Summary:

I said: "So the quote has Obama saying that it was good the Warren Court did not get into that business of redistributing wealth." (Post #3)

Sophia said: "No... in this quote Obama expresses his criticism. He finds it regretful that it did not. He wishes it did. " (Post #4)

Here is Obama later in the interview: You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.

So how can this be interpreted as "he wishes it did"?

That's the whole point of the disagreement. You can't slither around it now and say, "Well, he favors redistribution in general." Of COURSE he favors redistribution of wealth, just not through the courts. That has been the American tradition for over 100 years (and even longer if you look at the attitudes of those such as Hamilton -see quote I provided- towards a society that looks out for the least wealthy. And it is based on the empirical evidence of hundreds of years of observation that capitalism pools wealth disproportionately. That's why I say Objectivists should not too closely associate themselves with American ideals, because American ideals, while overlapping at times with Objectivist principles, are fundamentally different.

That someone here would persist in this troll like behavior of making bold and inflammatory, unsupported remarks and then ignore all criticism , across multiple threads, is both juvenile and tiresome.

I take exception to the troll remark. I am not making inflammatory statements, and they are supported with argument and evidence. Don't reduce this to attacks on personal integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama, on the other hand, rejects prosperity and freedom as moral ideals to strive for, and is actively working to destroy them.

I have to echo The Egoist's point in that you paint Obama as a political arsonist who's aim is to destroy America. You don't even acknowledge the likelihood that he has good intentions. I don't know how you can have read anything about the man and come to that conclusion.

Your opening essay, while long on rhetoric, is short on specific criticism. Your disagreements are implied but clear: you oppose his positions on progressive taxation, campaign finance reform, and the Fairness Doctrine. Although it is an entertaining rant, I found it hyperbolic and hard to take seriously intellectually. Your credibility with me was completely gone when I got to: And most of them are genuinely at a loss to understand how a philosophy...is going to help defend them from the very concrete machine guns of Obama's agents. I can only assume you meant we dissenting Americans can expect to be rounded up by "Obama's agents" in the still of night? Way over the top.

Your reading of American history is that of someone who selectively chooses the parts, and the views of only certain individuals, that bolsters their ideology. This country was and always will be one that celebrates and strives for both individual freedom and the good of the country as a whole. This is indisputable. There were many founding ideals that were at odds with each other, and they had to be resolved by the great American tradition of compromise. The reason Objectivism is not fully compatible with American ideals is that it cannot be compromised with, it is a closed ideology. The political seed for Objectivism will not be planted on American soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how can this be interpreted as "he wishes it did"?

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be OK."

bold mine

Please notice how he said that civil rights movements had its victories and failures. Then he says what the consideres to be successful aspects.

"But The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

Notice the but here.. this is where he starts talking about what he considers to be a failure of the civil rights movement.

And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical.

Here he says that Warren Court was not that radical - because why? because of what it did not do that he just said above he wanted to happen.

Below he explains why it did not:

It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution,

So that is why it did not. Here is an answer to you, Publius about the nature of American Constitution (clearly Obama undertands it very well - we will see more of this below). The Constitution is a document which protects individual rights - it prevents legalization of rights violations.

as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

At least as it's beein interpreted - opening a window for a different interpreation.

And it does not say that for a reason. It is a document limiting the power of the government. Obama sure understands that.

Then in context of the above he says:

"one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused,

He called it a tragedy.

I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still stuffer from that."

Why? Because it being "so court focused" prevented redistibutive change. Again... he wanted civil rights movement to include redistributive action.

Then:

A caller, "Karen," asked if it's "too late for that kind of reparative work economically?” And she asked if that work should be done through the courts or through legislation.

"Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor," Obama said. "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way."

He is not optimistic. This again further supports the intent. He is FOR major redistributive change and understands the legal constrains put in place by the Founding Fathers in the form of American Constitution.

His views and intent are NOT unclear. He wanted the civil rights movement to include redistributive change - the fact that it did not - he considers a tragedy.

If somone wishes for something to happen - it is reasonable to conclude that he would want the barriers that are put in place to prevent this from happening to be gone - perhaps by Warren Court interpreting the law differently - by Warren Court being more radical by Obama definition of radical in that context.

It is not reasonable to conclude from the above that Obama was GLAD that Warren Court did not get into the business of redistributing wealth. Obama clearly wanted redistibution to happen and would have been glad to see it.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one major difference between the realities of FDR and Obama. In 1945 (when FDR was leaving office - and certainly before) the true nature and consequences of socialism were not fully known based on experience. It was not until the last quarter of the twentieth century that it became apparent just how much destruction it brings. Obama does not deserve the benefit of the doubt one may give FDR.

The failures of socialism don't need to be experienced to be known. By it's nature it delimits individual rights.

Von Mises and others had already explained how socialism is doomed even in a practical sense. There IS no excuse, or no more a one than there is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't even acknowledge the likelihood that he has good intentions.

First I do not much care about his intensions. The consequences of his wrong doing are going to be the same regardless.

Second, he understands and even fully acknowledged that it is the free market which is the source of wealth. He also due to this altruistic ethics believes in economic equality. His attachment to that idea is stronger than his attachement to the notion of individual rights your country is based on. He is willing to sacrifice the second for the sake of the first. He does not want to ruin your country economically to the ground - he just wants to enslave the able for the sake of the unable. He wants some to produce so he can redistibute some of the wealth to those who do not produce.

This country was and always will be one that celebrates and strives for both individual freedom and the good of the country as a whole.

Your country was build on the idea of equality of opportunity but never on the idea of economic equality. The good of the country as a whole derives from the good of the individuals (meaning upholding individual rights - at the heart of which is the right to their own property, to be free to generate wealth and then keep the fruits of their labor) making up the country.

There were many founding ideals that were at odds with each other, and they had to be resolved by the great American tradition of compromise.

The founding ideals were not at odds. It is people who deviate from the founding ideals. And there is no compromise with the violation of individual rights.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The failures of socialism don't need to be experienced to be known.

Von Mises and others had already explained how socialism is doomed even in a practical sense

I said may give to FDR. It is a difference between theory and practice. Today we have both the explanation of why it can't work and the supportive empirical evidence. Back then the empirical evidence was not in place so I can understand why someone may have been mistaken about it.

Part of it was gaining better understanding of human nature (through the experiment of socialism). We have that today.

Ethically, I don't know. Less excuse I guess. But that first part is valid and may have been a factor in someone's thinking "maybe" especially in the time of economic crisis.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said: "He is clearly implying(as clear as he ever is) that the courts did not go far enough." That's why I said you were misreading the quote and the context of the interview. You were defending Sophia's take on the interview, and she is still insisting that he said in the interview, not outside of it, that he wanted the court to be more involved in deciding redistributive public policy. Summary:

I said: "So the quote has Obama saying that it was good the Warren Court did not get into that business of redistributing wealth." (Post #3)

I do disagree with that for the very reason I just expressed. Namely, he wants redistributive change. If that is what he wants, then in no way could he be happy that it failed in the courts. He is merely accepting that failure and setting about it in a different way.

Sophia said: "No... in this quote Obama expresses his criticism. He finds it regretful that it did not. He wishes it did. " (Post #4)

Here is Obama later in the interview: You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.

So how can this be interpreted as "he wishes it did"?

Because he obviously does. All he is saying above, is that the court(because of the restrictions placed on it by the constitution) "are not very good at it." Do you agree that this is different then saying he is somehow glad that the court failed because he is a proponent of rights?

That's the whole point of the disagreement. You can't slither around it now and say, "Well, he favors redistribution in general." Of COURSE he favors redistribution of wealth, just not through the courts.

I thought, by your earlier statements, that you considered him to not be an opponent of rights. I'll let the "slithering" comment slide since it appears that you took my comment towards Mammon as your own and may have felt defensive. I would clarify that I am not attempting to slither and am more than willing to discuss any and every idea here, as it is a subject that interests me. Your comments have been a little, all over the board because you are argueing against many, but I am honestly attempting to keep up.

Also, I would not call my comment toward Mammon an ad hominem. It's more of a scolding. He's been a very delinquent child and I would encourage everyone else to scold him often.

Positive public programs are neither constitutionally required nor flatly unconstitutional, they are a matter of legislation.

I disagree with this position. The fact that the constitution specified what government could do, and that all else was prohibited, is easily understood. That said, positive public programs are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution so I fail to understand how they are not constitutional.

That has been the American tradition for over 100 years (and even longer if you look at the attitudes of those such as Hamilton -see quote I provided- towards a society that looks out for the least wealthy.

The last 100 years have been the least compatible with our founding principles. I don't understand why our liberal tradition from the federal reserve act forward should be viewed in anyway, as consistent with the founders lockean, rights based ideology. The last 100 years have been nothing but an endless series of usurpations and power grabs by the federal government.

Even Hamilton's quote does not justify the last 100 years. He wrote, "tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!" People are not oppressed by the wealth of others, are they? If not than "redistributive change," has no place in the US.

And it is based on the empirical evidence of hundreds of years of observation that capitalism pools wealth disproportionately.

Do I understand you to be implying here that other social systems do not pool wealth disproportionately?

That's why I say Objectivists should not too closely associate themselves with American ideals, because American ideals, while overlapping at times with Objectivist principles, are fundamentally different.

I can see why you think that if you read the founders to be men interested in avoiding pools of wealth; interested in equality of position. I strongly disagree, of course.

I take exception to the troll remark. I am not making inflammatory statements, and they are supported with argument and evidence. Don't reduce this to attacks on personal integrity.

Again, that was not intended for you. You clearly do come back to argue your point. Even if you're wrong. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were many founding ideals that were at odds with each other, and they had to be resolved by the great American tradition of compromise. The reason Objectivism is not fully compatible with American ideals is that it cannot be compromised with, it is a closed ideology. The political seed for Objectivism will not be planted on American soil.

In your opinion, what are the 'founding ideals' of this nation? Which ones were at odds? And in what ways were they compromised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "it", I assume you mean wealth redistribution? If so, are you saying that Obama is not in favor of wealth redistribution? Or, are you saying that one cannot conclude that from that particular interview?

That you cannot conclude that from that particular interview. There isn't much of his personal views you really can conclude from it to begin with. He was on the show as a commentator on the event. I don't think the Warren Court was very radical, so does that make me anti-American?

Their is a huge gap between assumptions and factual truth that needs to be cleared.

BTW: This thread suffers from being based on the very ill-defined term "anti-American". For instance, slavery was allowed by the constitution, but would be utterly anti-American in the way the term was used by Sophia.

I wonder if "anti-American" is a floating abstraction? What is America exactly and how can you be "pro-" or "un-" or "anti-" it? Is it a geographic place, or a group of people or government institution, or history?

The most I see in this thread is "America=My views" and if you're against their views on the subject, you're against America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the Warren Court was very radical, so does that make me anti-American?

This is a dishonesty summary.

The most I see in this thread is "America=My views" and if you're against their views on the subject, you're against America.

This is also a dishonest summary.

Mammon, this is the point in which I have lost the last trace of my respect for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...