Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ready To Choose Your Poison?

Rate this topic


AutoJC
 Share

Recommended Posts

AutoJC:

I, for one, am sick of your insults.  Your use of such terms as "Republican plants," "FUD," and espcially "faith based collectivist altruist Right" belong in forums such as Indymedia and DemocraticUnderground.  You constantly ignore the context of the forum you are addressing.  You never argue the points against your position, rather you dismiss all statements by smearing them with a Rightest paintbrush.  The people on this forum are Objectivists and students of Objectivism.  Not one has expressed any admiration for Mr. Bush's policies, even on the war.  I haven't read one post that is FOR Bush, but is rather against Kerry's socialist, anti-American, anti-military, pro-UN stances.  If you cannot understand that the word "progressive" has been a synonym for socialism in this country since the 1930's, I doubt your ability to understand Mr. Kerry's positions.

...

Do not bother to respond.  I will no longer be reading your flippancy.  I've had enough of your disrespect and your insults.

I agree with your assessments.

Regarding the political aspect: I see the Bush-Kerry issue as a near-parallel to Ayn Rand's assessment of the Nixon-McGovern battle in 1972. Although the situation is not exactly the same, many of her words meant then, apply now.

"I am not an admirer of President Nixon, as my readers know. But I urge every able-minded voter, of any race, creed, color, age, sex, or political party, to vote for Nixon—as a matter of national emergency. This is no longer an issue of choosing the lesser of two commensurate evils. The choice is between a flawed candidate representing Western civilization—and the perfect candidate of its primordial enemies.

"If there were some campaign organization called "Anti-Nixonites for Nixon," it would name my position."

-- Ayn Rand, "A Preview--Part III," The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 24, August 28, 1972

We had "Anti-Nixonites for Nixon" buttons made. Maybe it is time to make buttons which read "Anti-Bushians for Bush!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree with your assessments.

In terms of his smearing my posts and thought contents, i do not agree with OldSalt at all.

I do see his point regarding the Objectivists and the students of Objectivism, and am paying a considerable amount of attention to that and re-orienting the attitude of my posts such as to better enable those such as Black Sabbath and others to sharpen up their own commentaries.

I think it puerile to dismiss a politician on the basis of conservative commentary, or, vice versa, dismiss a politician on the basis of pro-organized-labor-socialist commentary.

That is my response to my critics thus far.

I think it far more valuable to go directly to a more factual source, as Greedy Capitalist has, for example, and offer one's commentary of such source.

Certainly Greedy Capitalist and I have disagreed on his or my interpretive commentary of a factual source, but I give GC lots of credit for his effort in doing so.

OldSalt is clearly mistaken, and maliciously so, in his accusing me of what he has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it puerile to dismiss a politician on the basis of conservative commentary, or, vice versa, dismiss a politician on the basis of pro-organized-labor-socialist commentary.

I dismiss Kerry because he is a renowned liar who tries to have his cake and eat it.

And what does "I 'd like to view this, Black Sabbath, as Lennox Lewis' advanced training program, for which he has the stamina (great metaphor) to fight the good fight! " mean?

"Far, far better to say that Kerry is a socialist because Kerry Himself said so."

?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dismiss Kerry because he is a renowned liar who tries to have his cake and eat it.

Whatever. :D

And what does "I 'd like to view this, Black Sabbath, as Lennox Lewis' advanced training program, for which he has the stamina (great metaphor) to fight the good fight! " mean?

"Far, far better to say that Kerry is a socialist because Kerry Himself said so."

?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

A little coaching to give your argument strength couldn't hurt. ;) Take it or leave it.

One goes directly to the source and one gets all the info one wants. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I see the Bush-Kerry issue as a near-parallel to Ayn Rand's assessment of the Nixon-McGovern battle in 1972. Although the situation is not exactly the same, many of her words meant then, apply now.

I agree, Stephen. In fact, this sounds quite similar to a point I made on HBL fairly recently... :D

I sympathize, to some extent, with those who want to abstain from voting. But I think those arguing for voting for Kerry (in order to get Bush out) are just wrong about the Democrats.

The Democrat party has absolutely *zero* positive value anymore. One could make a case that Truman loved his country. Maybe one could make a case for Kennedy too. But ever since '72 and McGovern, the "old left" is dead. All that's left in that party, with the possible exceptions of Joseph Lieberman and Zell Miller, are socialist anti-Americans. Just look at Clinton, whose power-lust was so great that he preferred to govern as a moderate Republican (HB's description) rather than do what was in his heart of hearts (e.g. socialize medicine). I simply do not trust Kerry to follow in Clinton's footsteps: the lefties are hopping mad at anyone (e.g. Lieberman) who doesn't hate America with the passion they do and they are the ones to whom Kerry is beholden. (Additionally, while Clinton was President, we weren't at war with--or, at least, we hadn't declared war on--the Islamists. As Clinton said in his youth, he loathes the military. That hasn't changed, and our gutted defense budget is a significant part of the explanation for the explosion of the deficit in the past few years.)

The only thing Democrats are good for these days is preventing a real medievalist like Bork from getting onto the Supreme Court. But I've considered the possibility of religionists taking over the court and have concluded that the *worst* possible scenario is that the SC will overturn Roe and...the issue will return to the states. Plenty of the "red" (i.e. Republican) states will no doubt *attempt* to ban the procedure. But this is the *worst* case scenario as I see it. There is a chance that Roe will *not* be overturned. But even if it is, there is a chance that *no states* will ban first-trimester abortions. But even if some do, it is a certainty that many won't.

The *worst* thing the Republicans can potentially do is discredit capitalism. But the odds of that are minimal, I think. Both parties are (for now) merely arguing over the size and scope of the welfare state. Until that changes, I don't see the GOP discrediting freedom. And at such time as the party begins to actually argue for the abolition of the welfare state, it will be due to Objectivist influence. By then, we will be well on the way to the ultimate Objectivist victory, and voting for the GOP (or whichever party represents the pro-capitalist position at that time) will be a no-brainer.

Again, I want it to be clear: I am far more anti-Kerry than I am pro-Bush. That said, I can imagine us doing far worse than Bush (e.g. Nixon, Bush 41). Why were these men worse? They were more pragmatists than religionists. And as I've tried to point out on HBL, religion *as practiced in America* is not the unabashed, unapologetic evil that is the religion of the Left: death-worship. (This is best symbolized by the Left's environmentalism.) Here's an interesting article on the subject of religion and politics from a conservative:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_sho...l?article=37956

Again, *consistent* advocacy of religion requires force and would lead us back to the Dark Ages. But, to their shame and credit, many Americans seem to agree with Emerson that "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (It is to their credit since, were they to follow their explicit ethic of altruism to its logical conclusion, America would have been destroyed by now. It is to their shame since they are apparently unable to think very clearly once the principles involved become too abstract. In short, they won't accept consistent altruism or consistent egoism for the same reason. Fortunately, their sense of life is basically egoistic. But a sense of life is no substitute for philosophic conviction, as the past 200 years of decline attest.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it puerile to dismiss a politician on the basis of conservative commentary, or, vice versa, dismiss a politician on the basis of pro-organized-labor-socialist commentary.

You don't seem to recognize the difference between opinion/commentary and objective facts. That John Kerry is against using weapons based in space is an objective fact---whether this fact is mentioned on a conservative website, or a leftist website, or John Kerry's website, is entirely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, Stephen. In fact, this sounds quite similar to a point I made on HBL fairly recently... :)

...

Very nice posting, Mark.

I must confess that I rarely read political discussions on HBL, so if I reiterated here, something you said there, it was purely coincidental. Ayn Rand's words about McGovern really echoed a lot of my feelings towards Kerry. I personally find him to be so offensive -- to stand in contradistinction to everything I value in selecting a person to represent my country in the Office of the President -- that Bush rises up in moral stature by comparison. Ayn Rand's words, characterizing Nixon as a "flawed candidate representing Western civilization," as contrasted from the evil of McGovern, really parallels today's choice for President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Stephen and Mark, for your much needed comments.

I just deleted the rest of what I had written in this post. I found it rambling and incoherent upon rereading it. Sorry. I need to stop posting in the middle of the night. :)

Edited by oldsalt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't seem to recognize the difference between opinion/commentary and objective facts.  That John Kerry is against using weapons based in space is an objective fact---whether this fact is mentioned on a conservative website, or a leftist website, or John Kerry's website, is entirely irrelevant.

I don't agree.

For example, you don't test drive a car by reading Car and Driver, do you?

Objective facts are rreality, i.e. A is A.

Sure, commentaries are going to mention what they perceive as "facts". But it's up to the intelligent to determine what exactly those facts are. To do so requires research beyond the conservative and socialist commentators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, commentaries are going to mention what they perceive as "facts".  But it's up to the intelligent to determine what exactly those facts are.  To do so requires research beyond the conservative and socialist commentators.

Can you give one example where The National Review attributed a quote to someone that was a deliberate falsification of what the person actually said? If not, then why should I doubt this particular quote? If there were a demonstrated history of deliberate lying by that review, then I would double check their facts. But there isn't.

You are simply being argumentative. If we can't trust The National Review to get simple facts right, why should we trust John Kerry's own site to get its facts straight, as you do? How do you know they aren't lying, or in error? You don't. How do you know the Congressional Record isn't in error, or lying? You don't.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that unless you actually were present and heard John Kerry say he was against space based weapons, then you can't believe he ever said it. You haven't dug deep enough, you don't know the reality of the situation.

In other words, you are just being argumentative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logical conclusion of your argument is that unless you actually were present and heard John Kerry say he was against space based weapons, then you can't believe he ever said it.  You haven't dug deep enough, you don't know the reality of the situation. 

In other words, you are just being argumentative.

Nonsense. I merely went to Kerry's site where I found out his stand regarding missile defense systems, quoted it, and commented on it. I represented that to support my own argument. Just like the National Review commentator has quoted Kerry in his context. Were you to represent that you agreed with the National Review commentator, rather than represented that his comment was fact, that would be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying that what the National Review commentators are quoting is right or wrong, since a direct quote is a display of fact.  What is the issue here is to take their opinions on face value.  If someone were to state that they agree with such an opinion, that's one thing.  But to state that the opinion of a commentator is a fact cut in stone is a dishonest misrepresentation on the part of the poster, not of the National Review commentator.

What I am saying is that the National Review commentators first state the facts then comment on them.  What I see here being represented as fact is the comment itself.  I thought we here were far more intelligent than that to draw our own conclusions.

Here is the original post we are discussing:

Getting down to issues, here's Kerry's stance on missile defense from space: there shouldn't be any missile defense from space.

 

Taken from The High Ground

So Kerry is for leaving the US defenseless against missiles.

A clear difference between Bush and Kerry. Advantage: Bush.

Clearly, my comments were about Kerry's quote, not about the writer's opinion or commentary. The only opinion expressed by the writer in that excerpt is that Kerry is one of the leaders of the movement to ban weapons in space, and I said nothing about Kerry being a leader of that movement. So where do you see me accepting as fact National Review's commentary or opinion about anything?

I merely went to Kerry's site where I found out his stand regarding missile defense systems, quoted it, and commented on it.  I represented that to support my own argument.  Just like  the National Review commentator has quoted Kerry in his context.  Were you to represent that you agreed with the National Review commetator, rather than represented that his comment was fact, that would be honest.

So now I'm dishonest, too? Again, where did I represent any commentary/opinion as a fact? Nowhere. You are making false accusations, but I will not call you dishonest. Just mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's what's confusing the heck out of me:

Nonetheless, many on the Left are calling for the United States to demand an international treaty banning weapons from space. John Kerry is one of the leaders of this movement. He has called space weapons "very disturbing." A few years ago, he proposed "to offer the world the potential of a treaty that says, 'We will only use space for peaceful purposes.'"

Only "very disturbing" is in quotes. By what context? Space Weapons? How can the reader be sure? I know in my commentaries I like to quote whole sentences. It's far more credible to do that.

Then he goes on to quote another fragment- "to offer the world the potential of a treaty that says 'we will only use space for peaceful purposes' "

The use of sentence fragments, or, worse yet, quotation fragments, is potentially deceiving.

You use the entire quotation, then you have demonstrated the complete thought process of the person you are quoting.

So I will conclude, in words that you can understand, that your source of information is second-hand.

Whereas to quote John Kerry from his own website is first-hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to charge and flame AutoJC because I think he is easily confused.

My conclusion is that you think there is nothing wrong with relying on second-hand information and commentaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True.

I don't look to the Left for what constitutes the proper use of the English language.

After all, the Left tried to legitimize ebonics in California by trying to get it taught in schools.

Funny, but the issue here was your taking the description of Kerry from his website as "progressive" as meaning that in a positive sense! But since he is a leftist, why on earth do you think that he means it in any other sense than the leftist perversion of the word?!

I suppose this is one good example of Kerry's "progressivism":

"When it comes to crafting consumer-friendly energy policies, (President) George Bush has been an abject failure," said a spokesman for Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites). "While gas prices skyrocket and consumers get pinched, oil companies are raking in record profits."

---

Your antics are getting old. I think most of the posters here have been incredibly tolerant of you. You constantly insult us, then you have the gall to tell us to "lighten up," then you have the further gall to report every perceived insult toward you--whether real or imagined--to the moderators even though everyone else has put up with your crap so far.

I already warned you once informally about slurs such as that other posters are just dupes of the "faith-based right"--this is your formal warning. Keep it up, and you will not have the privilege of "expressing your opinion" on this board any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are totally mistaken about the letter and intent of my posts.

But this is YOUR message board. And I have to respect your wishes, whatever they may be.

Not only will I depart, but I'll withdraw my offer of support of any kind to this board.

Sice your wish is to dispose of me, I'll cater to this wish.

My opinion is this board is a total perversion of its stated purpose in practice.

Goodbye, and good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion  is this board is a total perversion of its stated purpose in practice.

AutoJC, you came, you saw, you argued about nothing at great length and mentioned Objectivism as little as possible while trying to tell us that John Kerry is to the right of George W. Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sice your wish is to dispose of me, I'll cater to this wish.

My wish was for you to participate in a rational manner.

My opinion  is this board is a total perversion of its stated purpose in practice.

Why? Because we expect participants to discuss ideas rationally? Or because most of the other posters here did not agree with you about everything?

Either way, I can't say that you will be missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I resent the bitter cruelty that seems to arise in any conversation here on these posts. that's not why I wanted to post here. I did, because I wanted some of my ideas heard and hopefully be understood.

on a side note: I just got "We the Living" a few days ago, and am nearly finished with it. But I really haven't enjoyed it nearly as much as the 3 main novels. did anyone else feel the same way? It's not the same type of characters. I don't admire neither Kira, Leo or Andrei so far. Am I not supposed to. I guess I got used to finding heros in Ayn's novels. These don't intrigue me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on a side note: I just got "We the Living" a few days ago, and am nearly finished with it. But I really haven't enjoyed it nearly as much as the 3 main novels. did anyone else feel the same way? It's not the same type of characters. I don't admire neither Kira, Leo or Andrei so far. Am I not supposed to. I guess I got used to finding heros in Ayn's novels. These don't intrigue me.

"We the Living" was one of her first efforts. I'm guessing that Objectivist philosophy was not wholly complete when she wrote it. Can anyone confirm this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We the Living" was one of her first efforts. I'm guessing that Objectivist philosophy was not wholly complete when she wrote it. Can anyone confirm this ?

We The Living is philosophically immature compared to her later novels. But it is still philosophically superior to almost any other literature out there--and at least on a par with it literarily. I count We The Living among my favorite novels--perhaps further down on the list than Ayn Rand's other novels, but it is a great novel nonetheless.

Ambivalent--why don't you find Kira inspiring? Or even Leo at least in the beginning? Or even some of the minor characters, such as Uncle Vasiliy, in his own way?

(Why on earth has AutoJC resurfaced a week after calling this board "a total perversion?" If that's his view of the forum, why would he want to come back--and why would he expect to be welcomed back?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two very good questions. I would love to see an answer by AutoJC.

They were rhetorical questions. I don't particularly care to hear his answer, and have banned him. The only reason I didn't ban him before (particularly after his comments about his opinion of this forum) was because I thought he was leaving on his own. But these people never really leave on their own, do they?

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...