Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Bobulinski angle on Biden

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
16 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Who here already knew that Q's name was a reference to Energy Dept security clearance, such as Bobulinski enjoyed during his career in the US Navy?

A "God", incarnate, if you ask me.

That's non-responsive.

I have been inside the Objectivist movement since I was a boy and the Q movement since it began in late 2017.

I can assure you that the preponderance of people whose minds are utterly closed to any new information is depressingly enormous in the former and non-existent in the latter. If I had to pick one based soley on the quality of the people and the breadth of their thought, the range of their real-world knowledge, their openness to new facts, there would simply be no contest.

Regarding https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/511396-qanon-backer-marjorie-taylor-greene-wins-georgia-gop-runoff

Q is three years old and we have our first Congresswoman.

To analogize with Objectivism, that would be Rand's first published work, Anthem in 1938 followed by the movement's first elected Congressperson, in 1941, (or '42, to be an election year.) Lot of catching up to do on the real word impact scene, versus never getting beyond arguing about words and their true definitions. Coming up fast on one hundred years, too.

But "God" is too much, calm your imagination.

Change yesterday's weather now and then, yeah, maybe. But "God"?

Would you tell me which post (please provide post #s) of theirs seem to you like they are trying to become "God"? https://qanon.pub/

Otherwise it is like when haters say Rand really advocated X, but then they go quiet when challenged to provide one example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here are just two shelves of mine.   I have all the extra paperback Atlases and Anthems and Capitalisms and Virtues because there are still some used bookstores in Denver and I pick up every

Imagine thinking having books will increase your status and allow you to assert more things

It appears you've made the Garbage Pile with your Bickering crap.

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

What should Obama have done about Fox Hunt?

He should have performed his duty according to the oath he swore. He should have stopped it, as the next President has done, whose family is not blackmailed and controlled by the CCP and whose DOJ and FBI are not run by blackmailed scum.

DOJ and FBI had to be cleaned out of yet more CCP-compromised human excrement in '17, '18 and '19 before that would be possible. Now it is possible, and being done. At least five arrests have already been made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:
13 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

What should Obama have done about Fox Hunt?

He should have performed his duty according to the oath he swore. He should have stopped it, as the next President has done

Why did Trump wait so long to "stop" Fox Hunt? Obama couldn't do it in two years. And it took Trump nearly four years (+2 inherited from Obama) to catch these agents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Why did Trump wait so long to "stop" Fox Hunt? Obama couldn't do it in two years. And it took Trump nearly four years (+2 inherited from Obama) to catch these agents.

All of that is New York Times narrative.

The nature of the delay was as I described.

There would have been no point trying earlier as the deeply compromised FBI and DOJ inherited from Obama/Biden would have spiked any real action. The relevant law enforcement agencies were simply too busy framing Trump with Russia to deal with the CCP flipping us off and disrespecting our borders at will. Too busy framing Trump. But that was the old FBI.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

The nature of the delay was as I described.

Do you have some evidence for that claim? Has Trump or the FBI director blamed the Obama administration for delaying capture of the Chinese agents?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Do you have some evidence for that claim? Has Trump or the FBI director blamed the Obama administration for delaying capture of the Chinese agents?

Was it their job?

Did they fail?

Do we know about the blackmail now, which helps explain the "fail"?

You don't need the Director to explain it to you.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

I can assure you that the preponderance of people whose minds are utterly closed to any new information is depressingly enormous in the former and non-existent in the latter. If I had to pick one based soley on the quality of the people and the breadth of their thought, the range of their real-world knowledge, their openness to new facts, there would simply be no contest.

And which would you pick?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Has Trump or the FBI director blamed the Obama administration for delaying capture of the Chinese agents?

Trump routinely and publicly states that Obama and Biden committed treason.

He has done so for about a year. He thoroughly exposes himself with that. Commits himself to taking them down. And that is because, again, he swore an oath to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic -- then subsequently identified them that way. I think we can be sure that a lot of blaming will be forthcoming.

To answer plainly, no, I do not think either person has specifically blamed in connection with Foxhunt. 

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

And which would you pick?

There is no conflict between the two, and no reason or need to pick. Objectivist circles are generally very closed-minded, they imagine themselves long-ago already in possession of everything required to grasp the nature of the world, including the political. True openness of thought I am sorry to say is just not abundant in (publicly observable) Objectivist circles. 

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivists can show up and talk with Q people and they will be welcomed. All are encouraged to think for themselves in every Q circle I pay attention to. Loyalty tests are absent, let alone emphasized. Just one example is Martin Geddes, https://twitter.com/martingeddes

Compare that to how I am being received at this circle. My bona-fides are excellent, but there is a problem with one of my beliefs* that becomes the focus of all my participation. Again, there is no comparison, but also no conflict and no need for me to pick.

In three years no Q person has ever poo-pooed Ayn Rand or Objectivism to me, never not once suggested my agreement with Objectivism is a problem.

* And what is the nature of this terrifying and abhorrent belief?

It is simply that the 4,949 and counting posts found here: https://qanon.pub/ are worthy of consideration and were created by persons of substance inside the United States Military -- not just by a kid in their mom's basement. That's it. That's all.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Compare that to how I am being received at this circle. My bona-fides are excellent, but there is a problem with one of my beliefs that becomes the focus of all my participation. Again, there is no comparison, but also no conflict and no need for me to pick.

You are the one that introduced the "if I had to choose" element.

What do you suppose is the problem with one of your beliefs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

You are the one that introduced the "if I had to choose" element.

Yes.

I had written: "If I had to pick one based soley on the quality of the people and the breadth of their thought, the range of their real-world knowledge, their openness to new facts, there would simply be no contest."

I now see I made a mistake in how I formulated that statement, I mis-expressed my thoughts and humbly withdraw the above sentence.

Having given it more consideration I choose to write:

I know both and if anyone is curious which circles have attracted better people in terms of the breadth of their thought, the range of their real-world knowledge and openness to new facts and people who think differently, there will be no pause before I deliver my answer.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Loyalty tests are absent

You brought this up about the QAnon movement to suggest that you are being given a loyalty test implicitly. Then why are you trying to prove your loyalty? No one asked you to prove anything with loyalty, but you went ahead and did it anyway. Of course I told you to get out of here, but that was to dispel any illusion that a QAnon supporter is any more welcome than a Communist. 

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

My bona-fides are excellent

For the same reason there is no loyalty test, no one really cares. 

 

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

* And what is the nature of this terrifying and abhorrent belief?

That would be psychologizing. You are an interesting case study though. What are the motivations of believers in Q? Are there common personality traits or personal histories? How does the conspiratorial nature of QAnon relate to that radicalization of otherwise reasonable people? Does QAnon radicalize people in the first place? How does a QAnon supporter validate their beliefs? The one commonality that I see is an inclination towards feeling victimized or persecuted. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You brought this up about the QAnon movement to suggest that you are being given a loyalty test implicitly. Then why are you trying to prove your loyalty? No one asked you to prove anything with loyalty, but you went ahead and did it anyway. Of course I told you to get out of here, but that was to dispel any illusion that a QAnon supporter is any more welcome than a Communist. 

For the same reason there is no loyalty test, no one really cares. 

 

That would be psychologizing. You are an interesting case study though. What are the motivations of believers in Q? Are there common personality traits or personal histories? How does the conspiratorial nature of QAnon relate to that radicalization of otherwise reasonable people? Does QAnon radicalize people in the first place? How does a QAnon supporter validate their beliefs? The one commonality that I see is an inclination towards feeling victimized or persecuted. 

 

Communist like the CCP regime which owns the Biden Crime Family?

In which Q posts #s will I find justification for a comparison to the ideas of communism? That's a strong a specific claim, now let's see some honest intellectual work to back it up.

In all the Q posts I have read the appeal is to fight those who violate rights and certainly none say to take their bribes and help them hide their crimes, as Joe did, but if you think you can make the case, show me the posts.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

In which Q posts #s will I find justification for a comparison to the ideas of communism? That's a strong a specific claim, now let's see some honest intellectual work to back it up.

I said as bad as communism, not a form of communism or supporting communism. Very big difference. 

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

In all the Q posts I have read the appeal is to fight those who violate rights and certainly none say to take their bribes and help them hide their crimes

V does too, and he's a fictional character. Q is also a pretty interesting fictional character. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll ask again, with the same emphasis: What do you suppose is the problem with one of your beliefs?

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

If you continue to insist that something was going on in the back of my mind making me choose to write "if I had to choose," then I will relent: it was the thought of the likeliness of you imposing zero Q discussion on me as a condition of posting on your site.

I'm not the owner of this site, I am one of the stewards.

I asked you to walk those who might have questions about Q/QAnon. MisterSwig asked for a more comprehensive explanation in conjunction with evidence.

Additionally, instead of providing no pause to answering your rephrased statement, 

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I know both and if anyone is curious which circles have attracted better people in terms of the breadth of their thought, the range of their real-world knowledge and openness to new facts and people who think differently, there will be no pause before I deliver my answer.

you leave the question to be asked explicitly.

Which circles, say you, have attracted better people in terms of the breadth of their thought, the range of their real-world knowledge and openness to new facts and people who think differently?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

... nothing was done about it as his second in command was awash in Chinese Communist Party money and they would never allow anything substantive to be done, whispering, "wewember, we have your son's tapes, we have you weceiving millions, tee, hee."

I've been following this thread out of boredom for the most part, but how is this not explicit racism from Jon here? I know you guys are interacting with him and let this slip for whatever reason but this is disgusting. We all hate commies here on this site but this supposedly "humorous" mocking of the speech of Chinese people should not be allowed anymore than if he used faux-Ebonics in a fake quote from Obama.

This is just my active (not the "open minded" bs he's claiming we should be) minded opinion though.

Jon, yeah, some conspiracies are actually true like the existence of UFO's have been proven over the last few years (not claiming they are necessarily alien), but if you are going to try to push a conspiracy theory on rational people you need to bring irrefutable evidence. And this is coming from a guy who got momentarily sucked down the Jade Helm rabbit hole for a few months five years ago.

I rarely post because I find it annoying to argue with strangers on the internet these days, so I'm not really looking for a discussion on this: just saying my piece.

Edited by EC
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...