Barack Obama

Current Events US Elections 2004/2008/2012/2016
41

To paraphrase Reverend Wright, Obama’s chickens have come home to roost. Obama, his Reverend, and his followers are nothing but Marxists. That’s it - pure, unrelenting Marxists. Now that the veneer has been peeled off, I suspect Obama’s chances of winning the general election are slim to none. I am, however, interested in seeing whether or not he wins the Democratic nomination, as that would serve to show the extent that the ideas of the New Left have crept into mainstream political thought.

I second DarkWaters notion. This event shows one how important ideas can be. The “idealistic” ideas developed by intellectuals in the universities and elsewhere during the whole of the 20th century have culminated in the pragmatic Barack Obama. The New Left has nearly completed its takeover of the Democratic party, bringing with it its ideas of multiculturalism, environmentalism, and feminism.

42

Before you absolutely tear down everything that Barack Obama is and stands for, at least read this article by Leonard Peikoff: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4811

Obama holds philosophical principles that I vehemently oppose, but he is the only candidate in this election capable of bringing our soldiers home from the mess in Iraq and pulling the evangelical hooks out of our economy.

43

Obama holds philosophical principles that I vehemently oppose, but he is the only candidate in this election capable of bringing our soldiers home from the mess in Iraq and pulling the evangelical hooks out of our economy.

I certainly agree with the standpoint of vote Democrat over Republican because of philosophical position, but I may disagree with this statement (the “only” is what I have trouble with). What leads you to believe that Hillary cannot achieve the goals you stated above?

44

I certainly agree with the standpoint of vote Democrat over Republican because of philosophical position, but I may disagree with this statement (the “only” is what I have trouble with). What leads you to believe that Hillary cannot achieve the goals you stated above?

With Barack Obama, he understands (on some level) the importance of a free market economy. His website states as much under Issues/Economy. He also maintains enough logical intelligence that he’s capable of organizing speeches on his own ability to reason. Hillary, when faced with dire prospects, has returned to wailing for “the blue-collar worker” (a traditional Democrat-slogan), showing ultimate ineptitude in making her own decisions. She’s even been quoted as saying, “Talk is cheap.” Well, it certainly is coming from her mouth. Hillary Clinton, at her core, is a politician. Barack Obama, although misguided in many philosophical principles, is the closest in this race to an intellectual.

45

Barack Obama, although misguided in many philosophical principles, is the closest in this race to an intellectual.

Why would this be a qualification as such? What is Kant were running?

The article you point to is the old one from 2006, about voting for a Democrat. I don’t raise that issue again; however, within the Democrats, I would have preferred Hillary. I think Obama has a much better chance of getting his agenda passed. OTOH, I think Hillary will have a harder time doing so. She just does not have the same charm that he has.

46

Why would this be a qualification as such? What is Kant were running?

The article you point to is the old one from 2006, about voting for a Democrat. I don’t raise that issue again; however, within the Democrats, I would have preferred Hillary. I think Obama has a much better chance of getting his agenda passed. OTOH, I think Hillary will have a harder time doing so. She just does not have the same charm that he has.

Kant’s versions of sacrifice are the bedrock of the Republican Party. John McCain would be more willing to see hundreds of thousands of Americans die in wars like Iraq and Vietnam. Because we’re supposed to be the model for everyone in the world, we can’t let this war go, whether or not it ultimately leads us to our own sacrificial altar.

Calling Barack Obama the closest to an intellectual refers to his ability to understand how actions have consequences. Hillary does not understand this. In a perfect world, a version of John Galt would be running for president, and true economic freedom would result. But given the present circumstances, and our necessity to chose the lesser of multiple evils, I’ll take my chances with someone more active minded.

47

Obama, his Reverend, and his followers are nothing but Marxists. That’s it - pure, unrelenting Marxists.

Although I think Barack Obama is an unapologetic Keynesian who is heavily weighted towards Socialism, I think calling Senator Obama a Marxist invites confusion on a serious issue. An important, but not keystone, aspect of Marx’s philosophy is that he categorized people by working class, not by race. Barack Obama definitely categorizes people by race, amongst other things.

Moreover, I doubt that Obama embraces the Marxist dialectic view of human civilization. That is, where wealth is created through exploitation from the masses. I think Barack Obama is a solid product of Pragmatism, Keynesian economics and the multiculturalist idea that if you do not give preferrential treatment to blacks then you are racist. Actually, I suspect Barack Obama’s campaign success is largely a product of 50 years of affirmative action. He is definitely very well spoken, charismatic and gives the impression of an invigorating sense of life. However, what else could possibly explain the Democratic base’s infatuation with Barack Obama as opposed to any of their several of their other young, charismatic and well-spoken rising stars such as John Edwards, Blanche Lincoln or Evan Bayh? To paraphrase Shelby Steele’s argument, supporting Barack Obama finally gives liberals the opportunity to appear as if they are not racist, because there is finally a viable and mainstream minority candidate who they can support. But I digress.

Back on the topic of this post. To my surprise and disgust, there are definitely Marxists out there who do think that wealth can only be accumulated through exploitation of the proletariat as well as embrace the labor theory of value. However, I doubt that Senator Obama is one of them. Of course, after this shocking fiasco with Jeremiah Wright came to my attention, I would not be surprised if you could persuade me that he is with a stream of Marxist quotes.

48

Before you absolutely tear down everything that Barack Obama is and stands for, at least read this article by Leonard Peikoff: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4811

Obama holds philosophical principles that I vehemently oppose, but he is the only candidate in this election capable of bringing our soldiers home from the mess in Iraq and pulling the evangelical hooks out of our economy.

I think his anti-Americanism makes him more dangerous on foreign policy, dangerously so. He even boasted that his middle name is “Hussein” in an interview in October or so, now he doesn’t want anyone to mention his middle name. I infer he is anti-American because Jeremiah Wright is and this is his spiritual advisor and mentor of 20 years, not to mention his wife’s statements on the country. The fact that he is so strongly connect with muslims in this day and age is also not a good thing. We’re at war with muslims, dammit. Is this a game to people? I think Hillary would defend America better, because she would be more desirous to do so.

I get the impression that Obama has no clue about economics, since his entire approach is to use the government and taxes to spur growth. He has all kinds of programs planned, including doubling funding of science, which would cause even more corruption in that field.

The truth is, when it gets right down to it, all of these candidates are not just bad, they are gawd awful, so much so that I don’t think I will vote for anyone one of them. There comes a point when the lesser of the two evils simply doesn’t work, or the lesser or the three evils in this case.

Our only hope is long term injection of Objectivist ideas into the culture. That’s what I’m focused on.

49

I think the Jeremiah Wright fiasco teaches us two things: 1) Voters in this country care more about a candidate’s religion than they do his intelligence; and 2) Given the perplexing decisions of our politicians throughout history, and our inability to achieve true freedom, preachers such as Mr. Wright have blamed advanced civilization as a whole for recurring injustice.

Regarding the first point, Jeremiah Wright’s words were not uttered by Barack Obama. And that is something to make very clear. They were uttered by an angry reverend having lost touch with reality, feeling powerless to change global atrocity. Obama called him a spiritual adviser, which means that emotion, not logic, is the connection that they share. To look any more deeply is absurd.

Regarding the second, it is Mr. Wright’s failure to see the true culprit of poverty–the principle of self-sacrifice–and its ongoing usage that find us in this present situation. But he is a preacher of a broken religion. My guess, he was at the end of his rope, trying to find answers to questions without shape or form, ultimately deciding, in those moments, to blame all humanity at large for the existence of genocide and fraud.

Obama is campaigning under similar socialist policies as every other politician before him, namely statist health care, welfare, and whatever tax-payer sponsored government junk we’ve always seen, but it’s no different or worse than what is currently in place. And to say that he is where he is because he’s black is short-sighted. It’s because he’s advocating hope and answers, whether or not they exist, when the other candidates are lodged under cynicism.

50

I think the Jeremiah Wright fiasco teaches us two things: 1) Voters in this country care more about a candidate’s religion than they do his intelligence

Regarding the first point, Jeremiah Wright’s words were not uttered by Barack Obama. And that is something to make very clear. They were uttered by an angry reverend having lost touch with reality, feeling powerless to change global atrocity. Obama called him a spiritual adviser, which means that emotion, not logic, is the connection that they share. To look any more deeply is absurd.

I do not see how your first point is a lesson from the Jeremiah Wright controversy. If anything, I think this controversy tragically reveals either how little the average U.S. voter values ideas or how difficult it is for U.S. voters to recognize objectively good ideas. Just look at the latest Gallup polls. It appears as if Barack Obama was not significantly affected by this whole incident at all! His approval ratings should have plummeted!

Secondly, I think it is absurd to insinuate that Barack Obama’s affiliation with his spiritual advisor does not have any “deep” implications about Obama’s character. Individuals often look to their spiritual advisors for moral and personal guidance as well as for general philosophy. Barack Obama obviously takes religion very seriously. More specifically, he evidently saw great value in Jeremiah Wright’s opinions as Jeremiah Wright was appointed to the Obama campaign’s spiritual advisory committee. To not place any significance on this connection suggests that you do not see personal philosophy as that important in shaping a man’s character. Is this the case? If not, please clarify your position.

To reiterate from before, I think Barack Obama’s longstanding association with Jeremiah Wright as his spiritual advisor is horrifying and offers a profound, negative commentary on the character of the Illinois Senator.

And to say that he is where he is because he’s black is short-sighted. It’s because he’s advocating hope and answers, whether or not they exist, when the other candidates are lodged under cynicism.

I am assuming that this is with reference to my previous comment. I did not make a statement as vague as saying that Barack Obama is “where he is” because he is black. That would be unwarranted and incorrect. My understanding is that Barack Obama worked he way into the Senate through diligent committment to Democratic ideals (which unfortunately are typically bad ideals) as well as acquiring extensive leadership and oral communication skills. Moreover, Barack Obama’s ability to campaign effectively has contributed greatly to his ongoing success in the Democratic primaries.

However, Barack Obama is definitely is not the only charismatic Democrat willing to make vague promises of “hope and answers”. The question I seek to answer is, why did so many Democratic supporters rally behind Barack Obama so early in the primary system, as opposed to other young, charismatic Democrats with presidential aspirations such as John Edwards or Evan Bayh?

The Democratic party is not race blind. I think much of the Democratic base became infatuated with Senator Obama early on because of his race and they stuck with him throughout this grueling campaigning marathon because he is such an effective campaigner. The latter is certainly a result of his efforts but we cannot deny the former.

51

Well, here in lies the problem: Clearly America is not race blind. For whatever reason, segregationist ideas have subsisted throughout the centuries, most especially into today’s sermons. It has always been the black-eye of this country. And it has created this division of “black anger and white resentment,” as Obama eloquently put it. I believe Ayn Rand was once asked why she didn’t run for office, and she laughed, mentioning that she’d never consider an action so horrible. The reason: you get elected based on majority opinion. You have to appeal to rational and irrational alike. Perhaps Jeremiah Wright offered a vision into the black community, which helped Barack’s run for presidency. Perhaps Jeremiah Wright gave Barack strength when he was young to feel like actions could matter in a world surrounded by poverty. Perhaps Jeremiah Wright was a spiritual adviser because some of his ideas were good, even if the last few were hideous. Regardless, it’s speculation. Who knows why? What we do know is Obama does not support such anger. He’s said as much. Listening to Obama’s words, not Jeremiah Wright’s, is the best way to find Obama’s character.

52

Listening to Obama’s words, not Jeremiah Wright’s, is the best way to find Obama’s character.

So, we should take politicians words at face value?

53

I think the Jeremiah Wright fiasco teaches us two things: 1) Voters in this country care more about a candidate’s religion than they do his intelligence;

Can’t agree with this. People are down on Wright precisely for his ideas. Intelligence isn’t a fundamental in a case like this. In fact, the more intelligent someone with bad ideas is the more dangerous they are.

and 2) Given the perplexing decisions of our politicians throughout history, and our inability to achieve true freedom, preachers such as Mr. Wright have blamed advanced civilization as a whole for recurring injustice.

Well, preachers such as Wright are reflecting postmodernist ideology. I mean, what Wright said comes right out of the pomo play book. Lots of people are pointing fingers at religion in this case, and it’s certainly part of it, but I really believe these ideas can thrive today because of modern intellectuals.

Regarding the first point, Jeremiah Wright’s words were not uttered by Barack Obama. And that is something to make very clear. They were uttered by an angry reverend having lost touch with reality, feeling powerless to change global atrocity. Obama called him a spiritual adviser, which means that emotion, not logic, is the connection that they share. To look any more deeply is absurd.

I couldn’t disagree more. There are two options, either Obama isn’t serious about ideas and so he will just latch onto a preacher like Wright because he likes the feel of being around him, or he is serious about ideas and he likes what Wright said. Neither case speaks well of Obama. He had a choice of who to subject he and his family to. Obama supported that preacher both spiritually and financially for 20 years, and supports him to this day. You simply can’t erase these facts and pretend that they aren’t pertinent. They are extremely pertinent and give us the deepest glimpse into Obama’s belief system.

54

Yes, people are down on Wright for the ideas expressed in those video clips. And people are down on Barack Obama because the man was his reverend (a religious connection) saying these video clips are intimate views into Obama’s soul. Obama has expressed contempt for such ideas. He’s condemned them as being static, incendiary. To judge this entire relationship on only those clips, to not try understand the context, the background, the reason they were manifested, the possibility that their relationship could have been based on different ideas, is ignorant. Barack Obama did not say these things. All one can do is speculate, and judge his words. And if you’re unable to determine if he’s lying, knowing what we know about Objectivism, Ayn Rand, the psychology behind lying, then that’s a fight you must wage with your own mind.

If you listen to Obama speak–just once–judge him from that. Otherwise, you are debating on gossip, and committing to opinions on ungrounded premises.

55

If you listen to Obama speak–just once–judge him from that. Otherwise, you are debating on gossip, and committing to opinions on ungrounded premises.

Well, I’ve heard his recent much-acclaimed racism speech, and have read the transcription too. He said he rejected Wright’s message, but he basically explained it by saying we’re all racist..we’re all guilty…let him who has no sin, cast the first stone. A load of bull.

56

Obama has expressed contempt for such ideas. He’s condemned them as being static, incendiary. To judge this entire relationship on only those clips, to not try understand the context, the background, the reason they were manifested, the possibility that their relationship could have been based on different ideas, is ignorant.

Excuse me? He condemned these remarks only after having been backed into a corner. The true judge of character would have been to denounce these remarks as well as the man years ago. If he had such "contempt’ for these ideas, why did he allow his children to be exposed to them? What about the other parisheners who hooted and hollered with approval at this mans racist rants? Was Obama concerned about the poisoning of their minds? Or does Obama just reserve his condemnation for racist whites like Imus and his dear old grandma? If anyone is ignorant, it is Rev. Write. Obama is either equally ignorant by associating himself with such a hate-filled man for his whole adult life and yet seeming to have no real knowledge of the depth of the mans bigotry and anti-Americanism or he is a coward. I strongly suspect the latter.

The truth is, we know virtually nothing about Barack Obama. What his principles are and where he would lead this nation if given the chance are a complete mystery. He can be described in a single word: change. He has left the definition of that word to each individual, thus seeming to find a way to be all things to all people. The only things we know for certain about Obama are those people he has chosen to surround himself with. Three names come to mind: Tony Resco, his wife who only recently found reason to be proud of America and racist, America hating Rev. Write. Not much there, I’m afraid.

57

If he had such "contempt’ for these ideas, why did he allow his children to be exposed to them?..

Exactly. I think he was happily moving along the path of being a black politician, when he suddenly found people urging him to run for President. Speaking of Imus, Obama was one who said he thought Imus should be fired. Shouldn’t he have said: Imus is wrong, but we can no more disown Imus than we can disown my grandmother, or Rev. Wright.

He can be described in a single word: change.

And his notion of change is that we should go from what we have now, to a mixed economy where we don’t take over business or anything extreme like that, but we tax rich people, and use the money to help the poor, via government schools, and all sorts of aid. It speaks to Obama’s expertise as a con-man, that he has gathered such a mesmerized audience who doesn’t ask: but that is what we’ve been trying for decades … shouldn’t you be calling it “non-change”?

I can see how someone might conclude that Obama is not the worst of the three (Clinton, McCain and him), though I do not; but, Daniel M. makes it sound like Obama is actually semi-decent!

58

Clearly America is not race blind. … [Y]ou get elected based on majority opinion. You have to appeal to rational and irrational alike.

This is a classical example of the “end justifies the means” attitude. This is also the fundamental and fatal flaw in your argument.

What we do know is Obama does not support such anger.

Even if this is true, and it probably is, we also can draw a reasonable conclusion that Barack Obama is not exactly bothered by Reverend Wright’s widely publicized hate speeches given his continuing association with him. Does this mean that as President, Barack Obama appoint someone like Jeremiah Wright as Secretary of State?

I really cannot understand how you can so easily dismiss this connection. Would you feel the same way if a leading Presidential candidate called David Duke his spiritual adviser, even if the hypothetical candidate insisted that he did not approve of David Duke’s controversial statements? What if it was Hassan Nasrallah instead of David Duke and the candidate denounced Hezbollah? What if the spiritual adviser was Charles Manson and the candidate also denounced his crimes?

If you listen to Obama speak–just once–judge him from that. Otherwise, you are debating on gossip, and committing to opinions on ungrounded premises.

This diagnosis of yours is wrong. I have seen Barack Obama speak many, many times. It does not help. When you judge Senator Obama, you should consider your entire context of knowledge that is relevant to him. Otherwise you are context dropping.

59

Then you say that Hillary Clinton or John McCain would be a superior candidate. With George Bush, it was his inability to assess the gravity of five plus years in Iraq building a country that never had weapons of mass destruction, never had people capable or willing to be free, where our own military is dropping bribes on the terrorists to persuade them to switch sides. John McCain will keep us there, for as many years as it takes until Iraq is a self-sustaining entity much like the United States. Hillary Clinton will pull us out, possibly, to take the Bill Clinton approach: a little meaningless diplomacy and pray that nothing horrible happens. Out of these three candidates, the question is: who will give us the most freedom over our next four years? But having related Obama’s ideas to David Duke and Hassan Nasrallah, I guess it’s not him…

60

John McCain will keep us there, for as many years as it takes until Iraq is a self-sustaining entity much like the United States. Hillary Clinton will pull us out, possibly, to take the Bill Clinton approach: a little meaningless diplomacy and pray that nothing horrible happens.

And Obama will turn tail and haul ass out of Iraq as fast as possible. At this point, that’s not a viable alternative. Of the three, McCain has the best chance of actually taking the offensive against the Islamists and fighting the war as though we intend to win it.

Out of these three candidates, the question is: who will give us the most freedom over our next four years? But having related Obama’s ideas to David Duke and Hassan Nasrallah, I guess it’s not him…

Do you really think that Obama, the man who promises nothing but more creeping socialism is the one who will give us the most freedom? I doubt that very much.