Mammon Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 http://www.revleft.com/vb/obama-defends-ca...3939/index.html Check out what the communists are saying about him. I like that quote by the way. It's one of the reasons I am voting for the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utabintarbo Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 Check out what the communists are saying about him. I like that quote by the way. It's one of the reasons I am voting for the man. If you think this is an honestly held position of his, why does he advocate policies antithetical to that position? Is it cognitive dissonance? Does he not understand how the policies are anti-capitalist? Or was he merely paying lip service to gain votes like yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 Obama is not a communist, nor is he a dunce, he is running for pick-pocket in chief. He knows capitalism is the goose that will lay the golden eggs he plans to redistribute. He wants capitalism in chains, not destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 I guess if you dig deep enough you will find a quote from him saying exactly the opposite, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 Here is the fuller context: http://www.vote-mt.org/Issue.aspx?Issue=BU...81104AU1000000D Obama: I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery. But I also know that in this country, our grand experiment has only worked because we have guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle. It's the idea that we are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers. That's why we've had titans of industry who've made it their mission to pay well enough that their employees could afford the products they made. That's why employees at companies like Google don't mind the vast success of their CEOs - because they share in that success just the same. And that's why our economy hasn't just been the world's greatest wealth creator - it's been the world's greatest job generator. It's been the tide that has lifted the boats of the largest middle-class in history. We have not come this far because we practice survival of the fittest. America is America because we believe in creating a framework in which all can succeed. Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. And so from time to time, we have put in place certain rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle prosperity or liberty, but to foster those things and ensure that they are shared and spread as widely as possible. Source: www.barackobama.com/2007/09/17/ obama_calls_for_greater_openne.php Date: 09/17/2007 [Emphasis above mine.] The qualifier above makes his ideological leanings clear: "A *higher principle*". Clearly he is wrong regarding the guidance of any such principle. I will say this, that's the most positive thing about America I've ever read by him, even if it’s bracketed by principles that would destroy America. Obama wants more power over CEOs to oversee transactions. In fact, it's implied right in the quote above here: "And so from time to time, we have put in place certain rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle prosperity or liberty, but to foster those things and ensure that they are shared and spread as widely as possible." But of course it does stifle prosperity and liberty. Liberals amuse me in that they think by naming something they thereby invalidate the objection. Stifling prosperity and liberty will have a profoundly negative effect on life, but more to the point it's massively unjust and immoral. "Shared and spread as widely as possible"?????? Sound like capitalism to you? Is it his wealth to spread? Mammon, I want all of your stuff so I can spread it around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ers Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 Unfortunately, most of our politicians (Obama and McCain included) pay only lip service to capitalism and the ideals that made this country great. I think it has a lot to do with intelligence and talent. Sorry in advance if I offend anyone, but it seems to me that only people with no real aptitude for the scientific method, math, engineering, or one of the more practical trades ever goes into politics in the first place. So we end up with essentially the dregs of society as our leaders. You know, the idiots in high school that flunked out of Precalc and took political science instead. The real minds in our culture are too busy being productive and creative to bother with politics, which is unfortunate. I think South Park said it best: Big fat turd or a stupid douche, which do YOU like best? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 If I am not mistaken, many politicians are/were lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ers Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 If I am not mistaken, many politicians are/were lawyers. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted August 3, 2008 Report Share Posted August 3, 2008 http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1827714,00.html Okay geniuses, who is Obama going to pick for the Veep? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NineInfinity Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Okay geniuses, who is Obama going to pick for the Veep? Joseph Stalin. He should pick Gore and then the Dems can slowly make Gore the supreme dictator of the world to make sure all the little squirrels aren't hurt by global warming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ers Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 It really doesn't matter who he picks for veep. You can be sure he/she will be a colossal piece of shit, just like him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Joseph Stalin. He should pick Gore and then the Dems can slowly make Gore the supreme dictator of the world to make sure all the little squirrels aren't hurt by global warming Doh ho ho ho! Brilliant! With insight like that, you should become a Fox News Contributor! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 It really doesn't matter who he picks for veep. You can be sure he/she will be a colossal piece of shit, just like him. What if Leonard Peikoff or Yaron Brooke was his pick for VP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrippa1 Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Okay geniuses, who is Obama going to pick for the Veep? With your cyanide, would you like fries, baked potato or salad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 What if Leonard Peikoff or Yaron Brooke was his pick for VP? Would they be permitted to bitch slap him before the emphatic and inevitable "NO!"? If yes, who do you think could pack the meaner punch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 What if Leonard Peikoff or Yaron Brooke was his pick for VP? What's the Objectivist equivalent of "When hell freezes over"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrock3215 Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) What's the Objectivist equivalent of "When hell freezes over"? When A is B. Edited August 6, 2008 by adrock3215 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 (edited) LOL! Actually, "When A is not A" would be better. A and B could be the same thing under two names. Edited August 6, 2008 by Steve D'Ippolito Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 Would they be permitted to bitch slap him before the emphatic and inevitable "NO!"? If yes, who do you think could pack the meaner punch? Yaron Brook. 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.