You know, criticize his policies all you want, but criticizing him for his vacations isn't rational. *Any* president who goes on *any* vacation costs the same, and ISTR that President Obama takes fewer than some.

No, the DemRep party (i.e., both Dem and GOP) has an agenda that is inimical to the liberty of the People. So assuming one has the ability to reason they would conclude that individual liberty is good and that the Dems and GOP are bad for liberty.

Well said!

+1 for AJAshinoff

As soon as I saw how he got to be in an electable position, no fricking way. And his wife is worse. She wrote papers in college about how she couldn't get ahead in this country because she didn't know the right people. Yeah, well I guess having a father who was a political hack in Chicago didn't give you a step up into the looters guild. She became friends with Valerie Jarrett, who groomed her and her husband to be the master looters they are. She almost got the University of Chicago's accreditation to practice medicine revoked because she came up with a cost saving plan that essentially was a "send poor sick people to other hospitals" and since UoC got federal grant money specifically to treat these people it was theft pure and simple. Oh, and that job was a totally nonessential position because it was created for her, and as soon as she needed to move on to DC, the job no longer needed to be filled and was eliminated.

Thank you for your comments and your eloquent way of clearly stating stating it. +1, plus 10 if I could.

Depends on how you define "support". I'd say Obama is the best President we've elected this century.

I don't think his continuous lying, his millions of my dollars vacations, his finding the way to circumvent the law, his Muslim tendency’s fit very well with Ms. Rand philosophy.

I don't think any serious student of Objectivism can support Barack H. Obama. Not if by "support" one means "agree with his policies and pledge to uphold his decisions and obey his orders."

Barack H. Obama is the worst statist ever to win election as President. He might even be the worst statist ever to stand for election as President--for I wonder whether even George S. McGovern was a much a statist as he was.

But worse than this, he is deliberately leading America, and the rest of the world, into a Long Night of totalitarian savagery.

Yes, by taqiyya or kitman.

I agree whole heartedly. Her philosophy dictates that every able bodied person do their share. No sitting on the porch drinking Ripple waiting for the food stamps and welfare check. If the best you could do for some legitimate reason was sweep the streets, you'd do it.

Let me get this straight-- you support lying, cheating, stealing, destruction of private property and ultimately destruction of the country, for the public good, of course, and then you call yourself an Objectivist? Either you need to get basic education or, more likely, you are hijacking the term "Objectivist" just like the socialists have always been hijacking everything that works and destroying it. You, sir, are truly evil.

We could hope. But with a very large percent of the world with their hand out, I'm hesitant to say yes. I think a supportive example could me the current Greece.

Because everyone thinks I'm joking, here's something to show that the joke is a "Ha-ha, only serious" one.

Written for Obama's alleged birthday, 2012,
http://papapossum.blogspot.com/2012/08/h...

Nancy Pelosi first. I'm tempted to add anyone who voted for either of these creatures as well. But that isn't punishable. However "no population has the right to vote for the enslavement of others" (Rand, 1973 QA at FHF).

Are you saying they could support the Democrats?

We must be defining Objectivism differently. Are you suggesting Obama supports some Objectivist principles?

this has been an interesting thread mdk. I thought I would post a quote from Rand which I think answers this question beautifully.From The New Intellectual: Who is a new intellectual?
"Any man or woman who is willing to think. All those who know that man’s life must be guided by reason, those who value their own life and are not willing to surrender it to the cult of despair in the modern jungle of cynical impotence, just as they are not willing to surrender the world to the Dark Ages and the rule of the brutes.".
Aligning with and supporting the current culture of the US to take from one group and give to another, to redefine words so that they may not be uttered without fear of persecution, allowing gangs of agency rogues to terrorize private citizens in their own homes for breaking laws no one knows were made, forcing people to buy products they do not want....is no Objectivist.

Does president Obama support dedicated objectivists? No, so why would one support him?

I don't think so. Even tho I didn't like him as a candidate, just saw him as another slick politician, I was briefly happy that he was elected if only because the stigma of being a racist society was alleviated for a moment. But in the end, all that has happened is an increase in federal power, and presidential powers. I just don't see how anyone who values their rights as we do here can support him, and be taken seriously.

Yes. In Bizarro world.

Everyone knew there would be one.

However, it is far from understandable, or believable, how anyone who understands Rand's various threads of thought can possible support someone who personifies the evil she focused her stories on.

I think you need to check some premises

CG, your first sentence makes me sick. You don't belong here.