Can a dedicated member of the Gulch support Obama?
Posted by mdk2608 10 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
Just wanted to solicit comments and feedback for us to think about.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Previous comments...
Had you not used the word dedicated, and simply said, can a Member of the Gulch support Obama the answer would of course be yes.
Dedicated:
ded·i·cat·ed
ˈdedəˌkādəd/
adjective
adjective: dedicated
(of a person) devoted to a task or purpose; having single-minded loyalty or integrity.
The definition of Support:
Full Definition of SUPPORT
1: to endure bravely or quietly : bear
2a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate <supports fair play> (3) : to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes>
b (1) : assist, help <bombers supported the ground troops> (2) : to act with (a star actor) (3) : to bid in bridge so as to show support for
c : to provide with substantiation : corroborate <support an alibi>
The reason is simple. Obama and ALL his policies are based on the opposite or "reason." One cannot support a person who in every way is diametrically opposed to a principal. To "support" Obama is to do the opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
That is no different to me than expecting the Jews to Vote Hitler into office, or at least ask the question, Can a real Jew, accept/support Hitler as their President.
Although with the contempt Obama has shown Israel over the past 6 year, and the Jews keep voting for him and supporting him I am beginning to wonder about the premise of my previous question.
Finally your Hitler anology is a good one. Actually in 1933 there were some Jews who supported Hitler. Many were in denial and thought that Hitler was referring to the Jews of lower society and some agreed that things needed to be "cleaned up" a little. Only until he started to round up Jews who fought for Germany in WWI and were business owners and contributing members of society like themselves did they fully understand the evil that was about to come and that Hitler's policies included them. By then it was too late and their fate was sealed. Therefore a dedicated Jew probably would not have supported Hitler because they had better vision to assess the situation where as the casual Jew ( Possibly only by blood or name) might remain in denial thinking that is it others who are at risk. Either way its a interesting trying to think about it in hindsight. The parallels to todays world are ever-present and should be understood my more. I enjoyed reading your comments.
First one that is submitted by some form of a Constitutional Centrist Party the TRUE center of the country I'm first in line.
Yes, as a volcano is a threat to snow.
In the Bizarro world of "Htrae" ("Earth" spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states "Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!" In one episode, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: "Guaranteed to lose money for you". Later, the mayor appoints Bizarro No. 1 to investigate a crime, "Because you are stupider than the entire Bizarro police force put together". This is intended and taken as a great compliment.
He's so wonderful that he sacrificed lives in Benghazi in an effort to be reelected after saying "Al Qaeda is on the run."
He's the best president at figuring out how to Cloward and Piven flood this country with illegals and create an unsustainable $18 trillion debt. That'll build to at least $20 trillion when he leaves office.
Ovomit is the best president at creating way more scandals than Nixon and Clinton put together.
Heck, I could spend an hour on this response.
Besides, this century has hardly begun.
A worse Muslim-coddling Marxist may yet come along. Objectivists won't vote for that pig either.
Not even part-way leaning ones like me.
I will say that depending on how Obamacare plays out, it could end up dropping Obama below Bush in my estimation.
into every part of our lives, from the bathroom to the
kitchen, from the office to Myrtle Beach -- they will
be able to control our behavior because it relates
to our health.
it is evil, and directly violates the constitution. -- j
Bush was bad enough, but he was a piker next to Obama.
https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.co...
He promised change... not expansion.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Most presidential historians rank Woodrow Wilson in their top five. I rank Woodrow Wilson in the bottom five for the reasons that such historians rank him in the top five. Wilson and FDR are the only two presidents that are even close to being as destructive as President Zero.
It seems to go without saying that objectivists can work with people who don't agree with objectivism on all issues.
Factions form in a republic, contrary to what James Madison hoped in the Federalist Papers, but objectivists don't get caught up in them. We're not the board members Rand mentions in Fountainhead to check in with our political allies before saying what we think.
That does not mean anything without context. An argument can be unsound b/c of faulty reasoning or bad premises. Just saying something is unsound without saying what is unsound and why is just meaningless.
I am no socialist. It's an absurd notion.
President Zero does everything he can to undermine free enterprise (You didn't build that!), undermine the truth (Look at how he twists the labor #'s.), undermine the Constitution (too many violations to count, or do I need to remind you about his pen and his phone?), undermine life (Remember his stance on abortion before he became president.), undermine the health care system (Cornhusker kickback and the payoff to Bill Nelson of Florida), undermine the university system (via nationalizing the college loan system), undermine the bond system (paying off his Detroit GM retirees before the constitutionally first bondholders), undermining the money system (How are those 0% returns on what you have in the bank working out for you?), etc. At best, he is a socialist, and that is only if you think he is a man of good will. He wants to do these things, and thus I must conclude he is an evil villain. BTW, I'm not the one down voting you.
Obama does everything possible to make sure that A is not A.
"President Zero set out to "fundamentally transform America". To what, you might ask?"
Politicians say that sort of thing hoping the listener will fill in the blanks with something he wants.
Regarding the list of supposedly socialist comments and actions, most of them I think are either are larger problems not related to one person or are not correct. We'd have to have a thread for each of them. We could add his proposed budget with increased deficits, which I actually think his personal fault and puts us at more risk than people realize.
The personal demonization and name-calling, though, are just buying into something I long-ago figured out was nonsense.
As for the name-calling, calling Obama a socialist is being too kind to him. He is a naked Marxist. As for the evil villain part, just look at his smirk any time he intentionally pokes producers in the eyes. He gets a perverse joy out of bringing producers down. The Ellsworth Toohey comparison is as close as you are likely to get.
As for his budget, our $ is not ours, according to him. Such money was not earned legitimately, according to him. I resent his demonization of my morals and values. In his mind, good is evil, and evil is good.
All this stuff about him being Marxist, sadistic about hurting people with bad policies, and thinking no one's stuff is legitimately earned are fabrications from whole cloth.
I really don't know about the claim of him having Toohey-like traits. People with those traits are sometimes drawn to positions of authority or doling out alms. I hope you're wrong.
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Oba...
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/moderate...
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/murd...
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," Obama wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
After college, Obama states lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."
http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections...
I read Acts of Faith by Eboo Patel a few years back. I believe Patel is friends with Obama, and their writing style, even in that one sentence is similar. Patel talks about seeking out what he calls supporters of group identity politics and then realizing that was misguided.
I plan to dream Dreams from My Father. I can't comment on the quote until I've read it.
Absurd as it sounds, the notion works. It works on me. The hyperbole probably encourages me to vote. It also takes time away from actual reform. If the discussion is "OMG, President Bush is the anti-christ who aims to destroy the US by turning it into an empire who enslaves the world to serve politically-connected contractors," then we're talking about that bit of stupid nonsense instead of real problem. It gets people's (e.g. like me) attention. Some people join in the name-calling and facile policy explanations. Most people who have lived a little and had a chance to build/run something know that getting things done is hard and usually when a project or org outside their expertise is struggling, the simplistic solutions are wrong.
Yes. I agree with everything you said in this last comment except for the parts pinning it on Democrats. I see no difference at all on these issues between Ds and Rs. Ds come off slightly better, but I think that's just b/c they're targetting their BS to an urban audience.
Yes. Moreover, the two issues you mentioned them differing on, religion and gender expression, are not affected by gov't policy. People won't stop going to church or express gender differently depending on which party is in charge. It's a sham.
And all this has come on the American taxpayer's dime.
I didn't much care for GW Bush, but at least his vacations were either to Martha's Vineyard (a Presidental retreat) or his own Ranch in Texas. I retain EVERY right to criticize this President for his MISuse of taxpayer dollars.
I'm not letting GW off the hook for his wasteful spending, just to let you know, but the comparison of number of days isn't nearly as telling to me as sheer cost and frivolity.
That was also, however, 60 years ago, and Eisenhower can hardly be called one of this nation's most incompetent presidents - a distinction our current Commander-in-Chief is primed to win by a landslide.
I believe so. I don't know him, even though other people, and I don't follow policy news close enough to evaluate every decision he makes. I had a lot more Hopes of Change six years ago. I'm much less concerned about the merits of particular politicians than the trends toward more presidential powers, more gov't intrusiveness, more cultural acceptance of militarized approaches to problems, and more acceptance of the gov't managing basic life skills for the middle class. Maybe you think President Obama has accellerated these problems. I don't think so, but you probably agree they existed before him and they're getting worse. Amazing technologies are creating new ways for people to create wealth and share their ideas, which increases personal liberity, but at the same time we're trending toward turning liberties over to the gov't.
"Those technologies you speak of will be useless if we don't respect patents and IP rights."
Yes, or almost nothing, and less incentive for people to produce if they cannot keep what they produce.
"They will mean nothing if our economy collapses."
I'm more worried that we'll go into living-dead mode with the technologies offsetting the looting, avoiding any dramatic collapse, but with fewer game-changing revolutionary technologies.
"Obama has doubled the National Debt and done more to move us towards socialism than FDR. "
The deficit spiked due to a recession and series of stimuli that Bush started and Obama kept doing and worse. I accept the claim that the deficit is a problem, and lately with the proposed increased deficit, President Obama has clearly been part of the *problem* not the solution.
"Perhaps his most enduring legacy will be his ambivalence towards ISIS and other radical Muslim groups."
He's doing mostly the right things to fight extremists. He condemns extremists for the evil criminals they are. He supports pluralism, democratic reforms, and avoiding even the appearance of sanctimony. He avoids aggrandizing them when they operate as a loose band of criminals but willing to respond militarily when they try to form a state.