Zoso Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 Okay, everyone just give a list of who you think are the most despicable people (preferably people in the public spotlight) in the United States today. Here's my list, in no particular order: -Pat Robertson -Jerry Falwell -Michael Moore -Al Franken -Bill Maher -Sean Hannity -Hillary Clinton -Ted Kennedy -Howard Dean -John McCain -Mark Geragos -Ruth Bader Ginsburg -Antonin Scalia -Jesse Jackson -Al Sharpton -Kweise Mfume -Julian Bond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfarmer Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 You forgot: -Mel Gibson -D. James Kennedy -Fred Phelps -Ashlee and Jessica Simpson (for representing everything that is wrong in popular music today) -Ingrid Newkirk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoso Posted December 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 I don't consider Fred Phelps much of a threat. The Simpsons may suck, but they aren't despicable. I like most of Mel Gibson's movies. I haven't heard of the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfarmer Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 I don't consider Fred Phelps much of a threat. The Simpsons may suck, but they aren't despicable. I like most of Mel Gibson's movies. I haven't heard of the others. Ingrid Newkirk is the president of PETA and has said before in interviews she wants her skin made into a leather jacket when she dies to protest animals being used for clothing. D. James Kennedy is another televangelist who frequently devotes entire shows to rewriting history so that even the most agnostic of the founding fathers suddenly became Christian (He actually has implied before that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian. I wonder if he's read Jefferson's autobiography.) He also does the typical crazy right wing stuff such as rail against homosexuals and abortions. Not as much of a threat as Falwell and Robertson but it scares me that so many people believe his revisionist history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toolboxnj Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 Those at MoveOn.org, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and other assorted "intellectuals".. also most of the NEA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 I'll second Toolboxnj's picks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 George Soros deserves a mention too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngalt1972 Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 Those at MoveOn.org, Noam Chomsky... Now I find Noam Chomsky invaluable. He speaks on so many topics that often escape major media attention. While I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, I use his books as launch pads from which I can do my own research. What I like best about his work is that he cites his sources. This makes it much easier for me to learn the context in which something was said or written. This way I can draw my own conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 David Kelly and Nathanial Branden There is nothing worse than those who, with the veneer of an insider's credibility, distort and misrepresent Objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 Why Scalia? I was under the impression that his judgements were consistently closer to the letter of the Constitution than any other of the Supreme Court justices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngalt1972 Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 Why Scalia? That's a great question. I would like to add "WHY" to each name given in this thread. What good is a list of names without reasons? Any child can rant, "I hate him" or "I hate her." Objectivism taught me how to grow up and stop acting like one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoso Posted December 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 Why Scalia? I was under the impression that his judgements were consistently closer to the letter of the Constitution than any other of the Supreme Court justices. He's too conservative, and voted to uphold the Texas sodomy law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoso Posted December 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 That's a great question. I would like to add "WHY" to each name given in this thread. What good is a list of names without reasons? Any child can rant, "I hate him" or "I hate her." Objectivism taught me how to grow up and stop acting like one. Very well, here are the reasons...I'll give broad reasons, since more specific ones would require a full-length essay that I don't feel like writing. -Pat Robertson-Chistian fascist -Jerry Falwell-Christian fascist -Michael Moore-anti-capitalist propagandist who gets rich by denouncing capitalism -Al Franken-see above -Bill Maher-Marxist, yet calles himself a Libertarian -Sean Hannity-Christian fascist -Hillary Clinton-socialist and dishonest to the core -Ted Kennedy-see above, and add "should be in jail for negligent homicide" -Howard Dean-moderate Democrat pretending to be a socialist -John McCain-fascist -Mark Geragos-knowingly defended a guilty man -Ruth Bader Ginsburg-consistently votes in favor of affirmative action -Antonin Scalia-consistently votes in favor of Christian values -Jesse Jackson-tribalist -Al Sharpton-tribalist -Kweise Mfume-tribalist -Julian Bond-tribalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoyd Loki Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 That's a great question. I would like to add "WHY" to each name given in this thread. What good is a list of names without reasons? Any child can rant, "I hate him" or "I hate her." Objectivism taught me how to grow up and stop acting like one. Given the names on the list, and the context of this forum, your post is meaningless. Why does someone have to type out the reasons for every inclusion when the why is immediate as a given context to anyone familiar with Objectivism. Now, if someone were to put Norman Fell and James Herriot on the list, I'd want to know why. We don't have to do everything as if from zero context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfarmer Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 -Hillary Clinton-socialist and dishonest to the core Isn't it funny that Hillary Clinton has claimed to have read and been "affected" by Atlas Shrugged? Apparently not enough though that she bothered to read and understand Ayn Rand's writings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngalt1972 Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Given the names on the list, and the context of this forum, your post is meaningless. If my post is “meaningless” why did you dignify it with a response? Why does someone have to type out the reasons for every inclusion... One does not have to do anything of the sort! Forgive me, where did Miss Rand write, “Objectivists do not ask Objectivists questions?” Maybe this will help (I’ll type slow): George: “I think Fred is the most despicable person in the U.S.” Mary: “Me too.” George: “Yeah, he sucks!” Mary: “Yeah!” Vs. George: “I think Fred is the most despicable person in the U.S. because…” Mary: “Really, while I agree he is despicable, I think it’s because...” The first example is a rant and serves no purpose; you might call it “meaningless.” The second is an attempt at rational discourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngalt1972 Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 I'm sorry, I must have overlooked the HBL post that determined: -Mark Geragos was one of the most despicable people in the United States today. Oh, and that Harry's reason was: -Mark Geragos-knowingly defended a guilty man Or was it an edict from L.P.? Please, Thoyd, just let me know so I don't ask anymore meaningless questions. By the way, I'm glad none of my attorneys think like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoso Posted December 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Why are you calling me Harry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngalt1972 Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Why are you calling me Harry? Hi, Zoso. I am not calling you Harry. My last post was a direct response to Thoyd; he seemed to be attacking my general question as “meaningless.” “Harry” is in reference to “HBL” (reread my post) and L.P. is in reference to Leonard Peikoff. These should, of course, be understood ... to anyone familiar with Objectivism. I'm sorry, now I sound just like Thoyd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Any child can rant, "I hate him" or "I hate her." Objectivism taught me how to grow up and stop acting like one. Congratulations. If my post is “meaningless” why did you dignify it with a response? Maybe because he couldn’t delete it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramKatori Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Add - Rudy Guliani - Spitzer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward j williamson Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 All the people listed above, although except for The Passion of the Christ, I have always liked Gibson's movies. I'd add to that illustrious group of scum - Dr. James Dobson, Jan and Paul Crouch, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, just to name a few more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnargtharst Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 Jimmy Carter. Maybe the worst of the bunch. Oh, and Norman Fell and James Herriot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfarmer Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 I'm sorry, I must have overlooked the HBL post that determined: was one of the most despicable people in the United States today. Oh, and that Harry's reason was: Or was it an edict from L.P.? Please, Thoyd, just let me know so I don't ask anymore meaningless questions. By the way, I'm glad none of my attorneys think like this. Granted that in itself isn't a reason to list him as one of the most despicable people, but why are you appealing to authority to try and refute the arguement. Peikoff and Binswanger are hardly the only rational humans on the planet right now and the HBL is hardly "the authority" for determining if a person is despicable or not. If you want to know why Zoso considers him one of the most despicable people in this country, why don't you try asking him instead of trying to refute him with a logical fallacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfarmer Posted December 15, 2004 Report Share Posted December 15, 2004 I'd add to that illustrious group of scum - Dr. James Dobson, Jan and Paul Crouch Doh! How could I have forgotten about those two! Bill and Hillary ClintonHillary is already on the list but I would agree with you on Bil. Jimmy Carter, just to name a few more. Winner of the Nobel "Peace" Prize. Yep. Laughable. We should probably also add to the list Dr. Laura Shelssinger, who, it should be noted, is not a real doctor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.