Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

John McCain

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wouldn't it be funny, If bloomberg did run as an independant, and the republican voters who hate McCain all decided to vote for bloomberg insted in order to bring down McCain. Perhaps we are about to witness the death of the Republican Party, after all, look what happend to the Federalist Party or the Whig Party.

Edited by Miles White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems I'm the only person sometimes who remembers that this guy was the poster child for governmental corruption not much more than a decade ago. For those that don't know, in the Savings and Loan "crisis" in the late eighties and early nineties an owner of a S&L named Frank Keating donated money to five US Senators who then tried to bail out Keating's S&L with government money when it became insolvent. John McCain was one of those five senators and his career seemed like toast.

For those trying to look up more information, the owner's name is Charles Keating, not Frank Keating.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
John Kerry was (and is) a people-pleasing, anti-war fairy who showed how embarrassing it is to be living in this country these days because of all the people that voted for him. While I really like Peikoff he showed his rapidly advancing age by endorsing Kerry in the last presidential election. I highly question if Miss Rand would have been too happy for him endorsing that socialist idiot.

While I still support the gist of what I said above, rereading it now I am embarrassed I made such an arguement especially in regards to Peikoff. I don't know what I was thinking at the time. I probably wasn't. :pimp: Just spouting off. Shame on me. This is something I will NOT do again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

"Referring to melting glaciers in the Arctic Ocean and the vanishing habitats of polar bears and walruses, the Arizona senator and presumptive Republican nominee for president said it was time to stop quibbling over the causes of global warming."

:dough:

Edited by Clawg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Referring to melting glaciers in the Arctic Ocean and the vanishing habitats of polar bears and walruses, the Arizona senator and presumptive Republican nominee for president said it was time to stop quibbling over the causes of global warming."

I do not understand why you bolded the fragment about the hilarious mammals considering that it is much more alarming that Senator McCain is downplaying the need to understand the causes of global warming. This rhetoric insinuates that Senator McCain is urging that we take action to solve a problem without bothering to comprehend its cause. As if we do not have time to resort to using reason!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day John McCain is a crazy old man and is the last person we want with his finger on the big red button. Several folks who have known him for a long time say that he is not in control of himself and prone to over-the-top outbursts. Combine that with the fact that his military service was a total joke (he more or less collaborated with the North Vietnamese for several years) and that his political record is slimy from the beginning and I don't see how anyone can vote for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand why you bolded the fragment about the hilarious mammals considering that it is much more alarming that Senator McCain is downplaying the need to understand the causes of global warming. This rhetoric insinuates that Senator McCain is urging that we take action to solve a problem without bothering to comprehend its cause. As if we do not have time to resort to using reason!

Well, I didn't think that part needed emphasis :dough: That thought is the whole premise of all political action concerning climate change.

It's just that I'm astounded that again and again some critters are given as a reason for political action that will cost billions of dollars. If that's the problem then the government should just buy land worth a billion dollars and put polar bears there, it's not that polar bears can live only in the cold, the only problem is the food. With genetic cloning, weather manipulation and other technologies it should be possible to sustain a population in 50 years. In addition a warmer climate will have an overall positive effect on many other species.

Of course genetics is evil, weather is made by God and 'Gaia' has to remain in a pristine state etc. My head hurts.

@themadkat:

And just imagine to have him 8 years in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combine that with the fact that his military service was a total joke (he more or less collaborated with the North Vietnamese for several years)....

What's the proof that he more or less collaborated with the North Vietnamese? The guy was in a prison camp where they tortured the hell out of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just that I'm astounded that again and again some critters are given as a reason for political action that will cost billions of dollars. If that's the problem then the government should just buy land worth a billion dollars and put polar bears there, it's not that polar bears can live only in the cold, the only problem is the food. With genetic cloning, weather manipulation and other technologies it should be possible to sustain a population in 50 years. In addition a warmer climate will have an overall positive effect on many other species.

Of course genetics is evil, weather is made by God and 'Gaia' has to remain in a pristine state etc. My head hurts.

@themadkat:

And just imagine to have him 8 years in office.

McCain is a barking loony sometimes, and getting old to boot, which is sure to exacerbate the problem. Do we really need someone running the country who can't keep it together when he's pissed off?

As for global warming, I'm not so skeptical anymore. I'm not sure why this forum is so uniform in its poor opinion of the world's scientific community on this particular issue. One has to wonder, are there other whole fields of science that have been hijacked by a political agenda for decades? I can see groupthink, politics, and money affecting scientific output over a limited period of time, but the science on GW has been building for decades now and more and more skeptics are coming around now. From what I've read, every scientific body has agreed that man is contributing to global warming. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists last year had to eat crow and revise its stance to say that man was contributing to it. This is an organization that has a great deal to lose by such an admission and it still makes such a statement. That's pretty compelling.

Isn't it time to get ready for the next phase, what to actually do about this? From a market-based perspective, what are the options?

I think it goes beyond being worried about one particular animal or another, but rather what happens to a particular ecosystem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one article to get you started. I'm at work and don't have much time but I'm happy to post newer articles later (this one's from 99). This is just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-03-25/...cain-a-war-hero

McCain is a barking loony sometimes, and getting old to boot, which is sure to exacerbate the problem. Do we really need someone running the country who can't keep it together when he's pissed off?

As for global warming, I'm not so skeptical anymore. I'm not sure why this forum is so uniform in its poor opinion of the world's scientific community on this particular issue. One has to wonder, are there other whole fields of science that have been hijacked by a political agenda for decades? I can see groupthink, politics, and money affecting scientific output over a limited period of time, but the science on GW has been building for decades now and more and more skeptics are coming around now. From what I've read, every scientific body has agreed that man is contributing to global warming. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists last year had to eat crow and revise its stance to say that man was contributing to it. This is an organization that has a great deal to lose by such an admission and it still makes such a statement. That's pretty compelling.

Isn't it time to get ready for the next phase, what to actually do about this? From a market-based perspective, what are the options?

I think it goes beyond being worried about one particular animal or another, but rather what happens to a particular ecosystem

The forum isn't uniform. I definitely think climate change is occurring, and it may or may not be catastrophic at this point. However, I am not an Objectivist, so take that as you will. ;) For me, the jury is still out on whether or how much humans have a hand in the change. What I believe the best thing to do is at this point is stop trying to prevent climate change (which is now impossible, if it wasn't always practically impossible) and work on dealing with the changes that are to come. To do that, clearly hobbling technology is not the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one article to get you started. I'm at work and don't have much time but I'm happy to post newer articles later (this one's from 99). This is just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more.

Sorry, but that's complete, unsubstantiated garbage. McCain has been pretty honest in admitting that he said and did things during captivity and under pressure of torture that he regrets. There are a number of people who were in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain who corroborate the accounts of torture and McCain still carries the physical disabilities associated with his treatment by the NVA.

You may not like his politics (and there is plenty to dislike), but I have a real problem with people who attack the military service of someone like McCain. I also had a problem with the people who attacked John Kerry's military service. The things Kerry did after he returned were less than honorable, but the guy put it all on the line for this country and I think it's unseemly to criticize his actions in combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that's complete, unsubstantiated garbage. McCain has been pretty honest in admitting that he said and did things during captivity and under pressure of torture that he regrets. There are a number of people who were in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain who corroborate the accounts of torture and McCain still carries the physical disabilities associated with his treatment by the NVA.

You may not like his politics (and there is plenty to dislike), but I have a real problem with people who attack the military service of someone like McCain. I also had a problem with the people who attacked John Kerry's military service. The things Kerry did after he returned were less than honorable, but the guy put it all on the line for this country and I think it's unseemly to criticize his actions in combat.

I second that. Very seedy article giving way too much credibility to some crackpots. Doesn't pass the smell test. This is what's come to be known in politics (after Kerry's ordeal) as Swiftboating. Giving people with axes to grind a forum to air unsubstantiated charges is bad journalism. These people are just upset about the MIA's and POW's, and that anger is being irrationally focused at McCain. That's what that Swiftboating of John Kerry was all about; it had nothing to do with his actual service record. It was about the things he said when he got back. It was payback time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for global warming, I'm not so skeptical anymore. I'm not sure why this forum is so uniform in its poor opinion of the world's scientific community on this particular issue. One has to wonder, are there other whole fields of science that have been hijacked by a political agenda for decades? I can see groupthink, politics, and money affecting scientific output over a limited period of time, but the science on GW has been building for decades now and more and more skeptics are coming around now. From what I've read, every scientific body has agreed that man is contributing to global warming. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists last year had to eat crow and revise its stance to say that man was contributing to it. This is an organization that has a great deal to lose by such an admission and it still makes such a statement. That's pretty compelling.

Actually, a lot of geologists are still skeptical because the signs point to just another glaciation pantern. We are do for one here soon anyways. Within our lifetime we might see it start. But the thing is that a lot of scientists, even skeptics still want these pro-environmental things. So they keep quiet about there thoughts on the subject. It's kind of like winning the lottery but not buying the ticket, for them.

Isn't it time to get ready for the next phase, what to actually do about this? From a market-based perspective, what are the options?

Ahh, do nothing or do nothing. Ride it out. Actually, if greenhouse theory is true then we should pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to keep off the glaciation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for global warming, I'm not so skeptical anymore. I'm not sure why this forum is so uniform in its poor opinion of the world's scientific community on this particular issue.

Which particular "scientific community" are you referring to?

There are thousands of scientists, the very best, who don't agree with AGW and more come out all the time. I just don't understand why you don't know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to wonder, are there other whole fields of science that have been hijacked by a political agenda for decades?

Yes. Astronomy is one example. Copernicus used valid mathematics to identify that the Earth was not the center of the universe; he revealed that the Earth and other planets revolve around the sun. But the Establishment intelligentsia of his time required the Earth to be the center of the universe so their religious dogma would hold up. Hence Copernicus was banished from society, his writings were banned, and he died before being able to publish his valid knowledge.

Yet Copernicus really didn't discover anything new. The heliocentric model was known during the golden age of Ancient Greece but sequestered via Ptolemy's cumbersome model of the universe in order to advance the rising religious dogma known as Christianity.

And now the environmental nazis led by Al Gore have hijacked what was once a legitimate field of ecology. Rather than scientists objectively studying the environment to learn how to control nature, they are working to justify left-wing desires to collectivize society in the name of "the environment", "global warming", "climate change", "ozone depletion" or whatever sounds good.

When scientists, intellectuals and politicians collude, beware! Valid science never needs the police power of the State to endure. Indeed, the only way the specious global warming scheme can endure is via gun-backed force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of people who were in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain who corroborate the accounts of torture and McCain still carries the physical disabilities associated with his treatment by the NVA.

Here's one:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/mc...ble-conditions/

"Col. George “Bud” Day, 83, is the most decorated service man since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, with more than 70 medals." He was a POW there with Mccain and he calls Mccain a hero. That is good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which particular "scientific community" are you referring to?

There are thousands of scientists, the very best, who don't agree with AGW and more come out all the time. I just don't understand why you don't know this.

"I just don't understand why you don't know this."

I probably shouldn't have said that. Given the way the mainstream media reports, minimizes and often twists these facts, I can see where this is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1964 Ayn Rand supported Goldwater's run for the GOP nomination, not as an ideal candidate, but as the best of the lot. However, she also pointed out that this did not mean voting for his rival GOP candidate, Rockefeller, in the event that Rockefeller got the nomination.

There is one particular item of Barry Goldwater's position with which I explicitly and emphatically disagree: his appeal for "party unity," his insistence that Republicans must support any candidate nominated by the convention. It is impossible for any honest advocate of capitalism to vote for Gov. Rockefeller: he has read us out of the party and out of the nation. It is impossible to sanction him as a champion of individualism and free enterprise. It is precisely in the name of "party loyalty" that those who are Republicans must oppose him: his nomination would destroy the Republican Party's significance, its role as an opposition party; his election would deliver the country into the power of a single party with two indistinguishable branches.
(emphasis added) That emphasized bit seems so true of McCain. He is a "centrist", who will deliver the country into the power of a single ideology.
Link to comment
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...