Fighting for Freedom Against Reelected Obama

[blackhorse]

The GOP must be purged. This is the last election I will vote for a GOP milqtoast. No more closing my eyes and crossing my fingers. Interesting to note that Gary Johnson broke the record for most votes ever for a Libertarian Pres candidate (it's too bad his foreign policy is crazy).

[PDS]

Jerry:

Could you possibly be smart enough to refrain from that incredibly illegal and stupid remark on this forum. Start your own blog if you care to use certain words in relation to certain elected officials.

A...

No shit.

[jts]

Jerry:

Could you possibly be smart enough to refrain from that incredibly illegal and stupid remark on this forum. Start your own blog if you care to use certain words in relation to certain elected officials.

A...

No shit.

Why do people assume that I meant assassination?

I wrote:

Can a case be made for taking Obama out by force on the ground that he violated his oath to respect the Constitution?

I will modify that slightly to make it clear.

Can a legal case be made for taking Obama out by force on the ground that he violated his oath to respect the Constitution?

If that is not clear enough, consider:

Is the Constitution not law?

Should the law not be enforced?

Is Obama above the law?

Did he not take the oath to respect the Constitution?

Should he not be held to his oath?

Do you think it's okay for the prez to make a bunch of promises with no intention of keeping them and take the oath and then violate the oath whenever he damn well pleases?

What is the use of the Constitution if it is not enforced?

[PDS]

Jerry:

Could you possibly be smart enough to refrain from that incredibly illegal and stupid remark on this forum. Start your own blog if you care to use certain words in relation to certain elected officials.

A...

No shit.

Why do people assume that I meant assassination?

I wrote:

Can a case be made for taking Obama out by force on the ground that he violated his oath to respect the Constitution?

I will modify that slightly to make it clear.

Can a legal case be made for taking Obama out by force on the ground that he violated his oath to respect the Constitution?

If that is not clear enough, consider:

Is the Constitution not law?

Should the law not be enforced?

Is Obama above the law?

Did he not take the oath to respect the Constitution?

Should he not be held to his oath?

Do you think it's okay for the prez to make a bunch of promises with no intention of keeping them and take the oath and then violate the oath whenever he damn well pleases?

What is the use of the Constitution if it is not enforced?

Jerry: honestly, your modification doesn't help all that much, and begs far more questions than it even has the possibility of answering, but you do have to bear in mind that we Americans do not cotton very well to somebody talking about our President this way. Especially somebody who is not himself an American. The man is our President, whether we agree with him or not. In this country, we have a very unfortunate history, going back to Abraham Lincoln, of our Presidents being taken "by force", and it is something most thinking Americans are pretty sensitive about. And somewhat ashamed of, I might add.

Obama may ultimately be a pretty shitty President, but he is at least our shitty President. That is the nerve you (I will assume) accidentally struck.

[william.scherk]

Why do people assume that I meant assassination?

I wrote:

Can a case be made for taking Obama out by force on the ground that he violated his oath to respect the Constitution?

PDS and others (including Canuckistani me) have tried to explain to you what is wrong with your suggestion.

PDS is most eloquent: this is the duly-elected President. If he has violated his oath, he can be impeached and removed from office. Using 'force' to accomplish removal from office is abhorrent to most US citizens (save the crazies) -- it is also criminal. For a Canucki to urge 'force' is seen, rightly, as both stupid and insulting.

Don't you get this, Jerry? Why not just say, "I understand your objections" and move on to your next stupid idea?

-- but let's say you do not care one whit what US citizens on this site think about your suggestion. Fine. But the owner of this site has expressly told you this is a red line for him. Please try again to understand the objections, the policy of our host, and on this subject, please STFU.

Look at it this way, Jerry. People go to jail for what you came close to suggesting someone else do -- making a case for an extra-judicial armed 'take out.'

-- if you want to push this line any further, do it ON YOUR OWN DIME and ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY. Fire up the walker, put on your stair-helmet, and await CSIS.

Edited November 9, 2012 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I'm going to delete any further thick-headedness of yours on this point.

The expression "taking Obama out by force" most definitely includes assassination. You keep insisting on that damn phrase, so I have to intervene. I won't have any more of this crap here on OL.

If you want to express a different concept than what those words clearly mean, find the correct words to do so.

You have a good mind. Make use of it.

I started by thinking you were making an error from poor writing, but I'm now starting to believe you know exactly what you are doing.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote that:

They need to talk about real dangers that can be perceived by the public, not some extremist-sounding projections that contradict the very eyes of the public . . . . The "what's in it for you" angle is a deep, rich, highly-resonating vein that is woefully un-mined on our side. ”

end quote

Michael took issue with my cynical interpretation that the Tea Party, libertarian, Objectivist minority should support a female, Hispanic, pro abortion candidate out of pragmatism. Sorry. Is anyone else having a bad day, week, and year so far? I am truly depressed. I recently read that as of now seventy one percent of ALL US companies plan on dropping health insurance for their employees. This could have the effect of destroying the health insurance industry just as Obama planned. I suppose we will still have those Geico lizard commercials and Flo, at least for now. A huge number of people will be out of work. This is just the beginning of our economic transformation.

Rush Limbaugh’s half-joking (I think) idea is to allow Obama’s economic bills to pass Congress with Republican Congressmen and Senators voting “present.” It is inevitable that either through Congress or Executive Orders, Obama wishes will prevail. An impeachment to stop a further power grab would fail, so go with the flow. This is a truly pessimistic outlook but standing on principle and constantly voting “no,” is not what the American people want or deserve.

My idea furthering Rush’s stratagem would be for the Republican House to vote on the complete Obama budget, tax law changes, debt crisis fixes, etc., with a voice vote. Get the word out to the press about what is going to happen. Get John Boehner to convince the House and Senate Republicans and the progressive government leaning media that this is the way it will be. Publicity is essential to set the record straight.

The House Republicans who are participating would remain silent allowing the Democrats to win the “yea” votes. It could be over in a half an hour. When the passed House bills get to the Senate, those Republicans participating would vote, “present,” as Obama has done throughout much of his political career, thereby ratifying the vote. When the economy further tanks because of all the harm being done by Obama’s horrible legacy it will be written in stone by historians and it will be meaningful and philosophically visible at the grass roots level. If the Congress follows Rush’s suggestion, a meaningful, silent ‘statement’ would be on the record. Pass all of Obama’s economic proposals and make the Democrat eat their words in 2014 and 2016.

I would never give Obama a rubber stamp for our military.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

Maybe a message from Art Laffer will help cheer you up.

FOLLOWING TUESDAY’S ELECTION, FORMER REAGAN ECON. ADVISOR SAYS HE COULDN’T BE MORE ‘OPTIMISTIC’: HERE’S WHY
by Becket Adams
November 8, 2012
The Blaze

From the article:

Former economic advisor to Ronald Reagan Art Laffer during an interview on Fox Business on Thursday said that he couldn't be “more happy” with the outcome of the presidential election.

Why?

Because he believes that by the end of President Obama’s second term, the GOP’s “odds-on favorite” for 2016, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), will be able to campaign on (and implement) pro-growth, free market policies.

“I’m very, very hopeful about what’s going to happen,” he said to Fox’s Martha McCallum, “I think this was the election not to win.”

He explains:

"We have the 2013 “taxmageddon” [i.e. the so-called “fiscal cliff”] that I think is going to lead to a very sharp drop in economic activity. And looking at 2014, I’m very excited about how the elections will turn out there. And 2016, I think, will be the equivalent of 1980, and we’re going to have enormous prosperity in America.

I couldn't be more happy and more optimistic than I am."

There's a video, but it doesn't embed here.

It's a silver lining in a really dark cloud, but I can see it coming to pass.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Why do people assume that I meant assassination?

They assume it because, by all indications, you meant it.

Robert Campbell

[Peter]

When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Michael quoted Art Laffer, “I’m very, very hopeful about what’s going to happen,” he said to Fox’s Martha McCallum, “I think this was the election not to win.”

I hope he is right. “Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya tomorrow.” I see Yahoo just put up two headline stories, “The sick, frail struggle in Sandy’s wake,” and “Sandy tent city feels like a ‘prison.’”

I was reading an interview with a husband and wife team of “Dooms Day Preppers.” The husband’s biggest fear was weaponized biological weapons like smallpox, which would kill as many as an atom bomb. He thought the likelihood of a pandemic was greater than a more “traceable” atomic bomb which opens up the perpetrator to massive nuclear retaliation. The country retaliating would have a clear conscience when Iran for example is sent back to a sparsely populated stone age. His advice was to simply prepare for a disaster like a hurricane or a huge snowfall. That will also prepare you for a dozen other catastrophes. At the barest minimum keep three days of food and water on hand.

We readers of Objectivist Living are wise and we should be prepared for a sudden catastrophe and for a more drawn out Second Great Depression. Will be look back to this time as an era in history similar to the 1930’s? I hope that if you have insight you will provide it.

I have already noted there will be a decrease in people employed in the Medical Insurance Industry.

I think vacation havens will suffer, especially if blue collar resorts are too far to get to because of the price of gas. What if a round trip from Philadelphia to Coney Island cost over a hundred dollars (with the dollar at its current rate of exchange?) I remember people still had a dime to get into the movies, so our future depression era entertainment, will probably focus on the cheaper internet or TV.

Luxury items will once again be just for millionaires.

People will hang onto their old cars, so car producers and the industries peripheral to the auto industry will languish. But, repair shops might do well.

The military will shrink to isolationist levels.

What else will cause a decrease in the work force? Any ideas?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[blackhorse]

MEMO to the GOP: STOP playing nice! Now is the time to expose with full energy the tyrannical nihilism of the left and any milqtoast politicians (like Boehner) who can care less about what it really takes to maintain a free nation. You must be unapologetic defenders of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism. Call out your opponent as the anti-liberty power grabbers they are. No more Mr. Nice Guy, now more than ever, is the time to stand for freedom!

[BaalChatzaf]

MEMO to the GOP: STOP playing nice! Now is the time to expose with full energy the tyrannical nihilism of the left and any milqtoast politicians (like Boehner) who can care less about what it really takes to maintain a free nation. You must be unapologetic defenders of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism. Call out your opponent as the anti-liberty power grabbers they are. No more Mr. Nice Guy, now more than ever, is the time to stand for freedom!

The kind of Republican you are addressing is not there any more. The Republican party is just as Statist as the Democrat party. The Republicans are the leading proponents of Crony Capitalism. Real capitalism is hardly anywhere to be found in the U.S.. The people you are addressing died off. The went with Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[blackhorse]

If only Barry Goldwater were elected president back in the day....sigh.....-that's back when Jews were still quasi-libertarian.

My new voting strategy is such; if there are a Libertarian, Democrat, and Republican on a ballot (or any combo with a libertarian) i will vote for the libertarian, if not, I will vote for the Republican (or most libertarian/conservative candidate. The GOP is in a quandary right now (justifiably so), you have the Tea Party leg and the RINO leg, now is the battle over which will prevail.....hopefully the Tea Party.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Post content moved to here: If At First You Don't Secede, Try, Try Again...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Post content moved to here: If At First You Don't Secede, Try, Try Again...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Post content moved to here: If At First You Don't Secede, Try, Try Again...

(Yes, I really did three posts in a row. )

[Dglgmut]

Maybe what needs to be revealed to people is the inherent power lust at the root of collectivism. The whole idea of people working together as a single unit always comes from the idea of harnessing other people's power to achieve one's own ends.

People get on board with collectivism because they only think about the positive potential; they don't consider that they will not really get a say in what the group ends up doing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dglgmut,

Heh.

Ayn Rand kinda did that a bit.

Michael

[Dglgmut]

But people lack the honesty to even recognize Rand's arguments for individualism. I'm talking about a more utilitarian approach.

At the end of the day, the utilitarian side of things will always win the argument, because everyone's in on the discussion. The majority will always want what's best for the majority.

People can train animals to do all sorts of amazing things--the potential of the average human must be astounding, yet most people have an incredibly pessimistic opinion of the average person. People think banning guns prevents enough accidents to save lives relative the amount of crimes they would prevent. Why? Because on average people are not responsible enough to own powerful weapons.

So the argument has to be made that the average person is capable of surviving in a free world. People dismissed Rand for a few reasons, I think mostly because she made them feel inadequate; that is not the way to proselytize a person.

[rhartford]

Objectivist Living readers might be interested in the below advocacy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEA with SUGAR

We TEA Party activists have much to do. We must convince a broad spectrum of the public that government spending must be drastically reduced. We are rapidly running out of other people’s money.

The government support of cronyism and paternalism will stop when the money runs out, but if we put a stop to it now, the painful consequences will be fewer. We must protect ourselves from the catastrophe that will surely come if we continue the spending.

Mary Poppins told us that “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.” We need to take our economic medicine. The TEA Party is uniquely capable of making that possible. The colonists were able to unify for the purpose of opposing British oppression. We too can unify to overcome our current government oppression.

The colonists produced a document that bore the title, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” To get that unanimity, history records that Thomas Jefferson had to agree to remove a passage he wrote condemning slavery.

Just as the colonists put aside for another day the morally repugnant issue of slavery, we must put aside issues that we each may find morally repugnant so that we may unify the country in pursuit of necessary spending cuts. Protecting our economic freedom is essential to keep government from extending its control over all aspects of our lives.

How can the TEA Party gain the unity of the American public for the difficult task of cutting spending? Spending reductions must be foremost among the TEA Party goals. We must engage in,

Truly

Effective

Activism

With

Spending

Under-

Going

Awesome

Reductions

If we can achieve TEA with SUGAR, our children and grandchildren will recognize that both we, and the colonists, achieved something awesome.

[caroljane]

Objectivist Living readers might be interested in the below advocacy

------------------------------------------------------------

Mary Poppins told us that “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.” We need to take our economic medicine. The TEA Party is uniquely capable of making that possible. The colonists were able to unify for the purpose of opposing British oppression. We too can unify to overcome our current government oppression.

Just as the colonists put aside for another day the morally repugnant issue of slavery, we must put aside issues that we each may find morally repugnant so that we may unify the country in pursuit of necessary spending cuts. Protecting our economic freedom is essential to keep government from extending its control over all aspects of our lives.

How can the TEA Party gain the unity of the American public for the difficult task of cutting spending? Spending reductions must be foremost among the TEA Party goals. We must engage in,

Truly

Effective

Activism

With

Spending

Under-

Going

Awesome

Reductions

If we can achieve TEA with SUGAR, our children and grandchildren will recognize that both we, and the colonists, achieved something awesome.

Dear God in Heaven, or not,?

Is this what you wanted us to come to?

Your daughter,

Carol

descendant of colonists, and not forgetful of what you did to great uncle William the Tory, ok he did not agree with the majority but tar and feathers are no fun nevermind the rail riding.I Is what Mr Tea Party says what you really want? Are we all supposed to forget about the sacred right to life and the age of the earth and concentrate only on money?

Dear God I know that you like everyone must change with the times, I just seek your guidance here.

[caroljane]

Furthermore God, i have to say I am not feeling much awe, maybe you should mention to this guy, tea does not do it for me although it may be awesome to some. I only like coffee, black no sugar,as you know God I am easy to please and well, as you know, a cheap date.Maybe if you have time you could explain what awesome means to this guy, he doesnt seem to know. Anyway thanks for listening, I will be in on my usual turn with the Altar Guild on Tuesday and will give your platinum skates an extra polish.

[Selene]

Robert H:

It is pretty much over for America for at least two generations.

What will emerge from this crash as we hit the bottom of the fiscal canyon after driving off the "fiscal cliff" is hard to determine.

A...

On Strike

[caroljane]

Guys, take heart.

One of Obama's main goals for Term 2, preventing Atlas3 from being made, is already achieved, according to Aglialaro. Thus WWIII, *"The War of How to Handle Galt's Speech Onscreen" has been averted.

I know you hate Obama but youse is his chillen too, and he done saved you from certain destruction.

*Also known as The War of Galt's Finger

much more important than Jenkins' Ear

[9thdoctor]

One of Obama's main goals for Term 2, preventing Atlas3 from being made, is already achieved, according to Aglialaro.

Where did you hear this? Are you saying he's announced there'll be no part 3?