Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who is better than Barack Obama?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

And Obama was born who-knows-where. It's not the place you're born that matters, it's whether or not you're born as a U.S. citizen. </just_being_pedantic>

If it were true that you didn't have to be a U.S. citizen, a dollar to a donut Arnold Schwarzenegger would be president now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it were true that you didn't have to be a U.S. citizen, a dollar to a donut Arnold Schwarzenegger would be president now.

I don't know about that, but it's a scary thought. :)

Anyway, we haven't heard from Mammon on this thread in a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's one of the great unanswered questions on this forum. It has been asked many times and I've never seen a reply. It ranks right up there with "who shot JFK?"

He supports him because there is no one better than him. The fact that no one in this thread has been able to come up with a satisfying answer to his question is proof that it is so!

It's difficult to tell who's better than someone if you're not told what the standard is for "good." Mammon, would you care to share with us the standard you use when you come to the conclusion that The Anointed One is the best? ........ I guess that takes us back into "Who shot JFK?" territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's crap. I bet there are millions of Americans that would be better than Obama. Just because we don't know them, personally, doesn't mean they're not out there. Now I'm not saying they'd be perfect, but it wouldn't be too difficult to find someone that would push us down the road to socialism or fascism much less slowly than Obama. (And wouldn't that alone be better?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
He supports him because there is no one better than him. The fact that no one in this thread has been able to come up with a satisfying answer to his question is proof that it is so!

It's difficult to tell who's better than someone if you're not told what the standard is for "good." Mammon, would you care to share with us the standard you use when you come to the conclusion that The Anointed One is the best? ........ I guess that takes us back into "Who shot JFK?" territory.

Capitalism Forever, I'm shocked. I held your opinion in very high esteem until I read that.

Although not my ideal candidate I believe that Ron Paul would have been a much better president. He at least understands the economy and realizes that the housing bubble was created by the Fed and Fannie and Freddie caused it. He promotes laissez faire capitalism and doesn’t believe in government interference. For these reasons Ron Paul would be a way better than the current president.

If the US just had to have a black president then I would nominate Thomas Sowell for similar reasons.

The reason nobody seriously answered the question is because its not a serious question. Almost anybody would be better. Better a president that did nothing than one who promotes a toxic and dangerous socialist agenda. A president does not that put us trillions in debt and destroyes our currency. A president that does not promote the anit life Green iniatives for a energy program. A president that does not want to force the health industry into one program like the pathetic Canadian one. A president who would never dream of nationalising our banks and taking of privite property.

Christ!! How could anyone who has read Ayn Rand beleive that Obama is the best man for the job!?!??

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's one of the great unanswered questions on this forum. It has been asked many times and I've never seen a reply. It ranks right up there with "who shot JFK?"
Mammon would probably say that he does not think Obama is great, and that he sees many faults in Obama, but he still thinks the GOP is worse.

Sorry! Mammon probably wouldn't say it. I mean, it appears he thinks that to himself, but refuses to say so clearly.

I'm not sure why absolute clarity would not be a virtue in discussion, particularly one that has been going on in one form of the other for a while now. I'm not sure, but I'm getting tired of it, personally.

Christ!! How could anyone who has read Ayn Rand beleive that Obama is the best man for the job!?!??
But, like the mysterious team of John Galt, you might be reading more into what he writes than he actually implies! If so, why would he not clarify it? See my comments above.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Giuliani would've been a little better, in my opinion. He did a pretty good job as both US Attorney and Mayor of NYC, compared to any other NY Mayor before or after him.

Also, Thales (both of 'em, especially the old one), Grames and myself.

So, how come Giuliani, Thales, Grames or you are President right now?

[When this is answered then I'll jump back to Thale's, utabintarbo's, foutianhead777's and Rearden_Steel's response, because they touched some significant as well]

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, how come Giuliani, Thales, Grames or you are President right now?
Thales and Grames didn't run. If they did, people wouldn't vote for them anyway. So, I think it would be foolish of them to run.

Giuliani ran, but very few people voted for him. Why not? Since he won as New York City mayor, we can assume that he had a decent chances of getting "independent" votes in a general election. However, he was scuttled by the GOP because he was not religious enough for many of them. Today's GOP will scuttle you if you're clearly non-religious. They will tolerate you if you aren't too religious, but make enough conciliatory efforts, like McCain did. If you're enthusiastically religious -- like Sarah Palin was -- they'll love you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Capitalism Forever, I'm shocked. I held your opinion in very high esteem until I read that.

LOL, that was a joke!! And you obviously didn't read my second paragraph, did you? You might also want to read what I really think of Obama.

I didn't find it appropriate to take this thread seriously because there was no serious intellectual content proposed in the opening post. In fact, when I saw the title, I found it to be hilarious! I clicked on it in the expectation that Mammon might provide an argument for his support for Obama--something I have always been mildly curious about--but at the same time semi-consciously thinking how entertaining it would be if he simply asked the question without giving any argument, as if it were self-evident that no-one was better. And then there it was, just like that--on an Objectivist forum, of all places! That is like asking "Who's more slender than Michael Moore?" at a convention of tanga advertisers. Seriously, this is the kind of stuff you tell your grandkids about!

Although not my ideal candidate I believe that Ron Paul would have been a much better president.

I was going to say it was my turn to be shocked, although come to think of it, it's so easy to be a better president than Obama that even Ron Paul could have done it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Thales and Grames didn't run. If they did, people wouldn't vote for them anyway. So, I think it would be foolish of them to run.

Giuliani ran, but very few people voted for him. Why not? Since he won as New York City mayor, we can assume that he had a decent chances of getting "independent" votes in a general election. However, he was scuttled by the GOP because he was not religious enough for many of them. Today's GOP will scuttle you if you're clearly non-religious. They will tolerate you if you aren't too religious, but make enough conciliatory efforts, like McCain did. If you're enthusiastically religious -- like Sarah Palin was -- they'll love you.

So, the criteria for running with the GOP is to be outwardly religious? Why is that? Would anyone here say that Giuliani is more well-reasoned and rational than the people he ran against in his own party?

So, how come Giuliani, Thales, Grames or you are President right now?

(That's supposed to be "aren't" or better yet, "are not the". Late night typos.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
(That's supposed to be "aren't" or better yet, "are not the". Late night typos.)

We're not President because we are not the power hungry, malicious and corrupt men, with the drive and the ambition to practice deceiving and brainwashing idiotic minions into an amoral propaganda machine to exploit the confusion of the 21st century American masses, that Obama is.

Why do you support Obama?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Giuliani ran, but very few people voted for him. Why not? Since he won as New York City mayor, we can assume that he had a decent chances of getting "independent" votes in a general election. However, he was scuttled by the GOP because he was not religious enough for many of them.

I don't necessarily agree. Giuliani lost primarily because he ran a poor campaign. He acted as though he was going to simply waltz into the nomination and he really did not acquit himself well in the debates. He also came off as arrogant to supporters, from what I've heard. It's a shame, because he certainly would have run better than McCain against Obama, although I doubt he could have won. This was Obama's election, but Giuliani would have been a much better president. Sorry Mammon! :)

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...