Aggrad02 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Apparently he wants a fascist state: He has no regard for the Constitution.http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archiv...evolution_o.phpOn the 2nd Amendment:"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety," he said. On the 1st Amendment:Giuliani said that MoveOn.org's ad criticizing Gen. Petreaus was out of bounds and hinted that the group should face some sort of sanction."They passed a line that we should not allow an American political organization to pass," he said. "We are at war right now, whether some people want to recognize it or not." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggrad02 Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 More from a 1994 Speech:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A962958260Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Radwin Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 More from a 1994 Speech:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A962958260Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Giuliani has certainly mastered the art of Orwellian logic.But you've got to give the guy credit for honesty. He has admitted what has always been the real purpose of government schools.It's a rather pathetic indictment of the state of the modern objectivist movement that so many self identified objectivists are supporting this aspiring dictator as the next POTUS. Remember when objectivists believed in laissez faire capitalism, strictly limited government, and individual rights?Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) Martin; Can you cite a source for your statement that Objectivists are supporting Guliani? I hope Objectivist would think before supporting anyone for President of the United States. Edited September 23, 2007 by Chris Grieb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Chris,It's the SLOP crowd and nuke 'em all and ask questions later Objectivists. I have read a lot of support for Guliani from these people.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggrad02 Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) I was reading some post on this subject over there and many of the post were very interesting. Most went like this:Ron Paul = LibertarianLibertarian = Anarchism (write a couple of pages about Lib=Anarchism without mentioning RP)Ayn Rand said "Anarchism = Bad"thereforeRon Paul = BadthenRudy Guliani = Kill MuslimsRudy Guliani = GoodThis is without researching RP's positions or votes, or anything else that Guliani has said he will do or has done ( I wonder if these people would support Hitler as long as he vows to "get the terrorist"). It is quite sickening. Especially since RP is not a traditional libertarian in the LP mold (even when he ran in '88).BTW:I would also like to say that I am very fortunate that I found this board. I have had many disagreements with people here but they have always (for the most part) been intellectual and not emotional. I would also like to say that the people on this board have a high degree of integrity. Not only do they try to be truthful but will usually admit when they are wrong or not entirely correct. I think this is very important for intellectual dialog, and I always try to hold to this standard. On other boards that I lurked at in the beginning, people usually were just beating their heads against one another, yelling about how they are right and how the other person wasn't objective enough. --Dustan Edited September 23, 2007 by Aggrad02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Dustan; Thank you for all your good comments. You are a great addition to this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Ron Paul = LibertarianLibertarian = Anarchism (write a couple of pages about Lib=Anarchism without mentioning RP)Ayn Rand said "Anarchism = Bad"thereforeRon Paul = BadthenRudy Guliani = Kill MuslimsRudy Guliani = GoodDustan,LOL...That is one of the funniest spot-on comments I have read in a while. It just goes round and round, but never leaves that circle.Dayaamm! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Michael; Posts like the last few make very grateful to OL. You and OL really are the good guys in the Objectivist movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 According to the Hotline Ron Paul came in ahead of Gulliani in the Michigan straw poll. Maybe Gulliani scares other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Radwin Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Martin; Can you cite a source for your statement that Objectivists are supporting Guliani? I hope Objectivist would think before supporting anyone for President of the United States.Chris,Check out either the SOLOP or ROR boards. A number of posters there have come out in support of Giuliani. Dustan has done a good job of summarizing the logic they typically use to justify this position.Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnummaid Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Ron Paul has twice as many votes as Giuliani in the RoR poll. 45 % - 22 % Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbara Branden Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 For the record, this Objectivist is supporting Giuliani.And, Michael, as is rather evident, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of "the SLOP crowd and nuke 'em all and ask questions later Objectivists."Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 The best way to find out what a candidate stands for is to read detailed journalism about his positions, not go by out of context snippets on an Oist board. My understanding of Giuliani's positions from having read journalism --NYT, CSM, National Review, WSJ, etc -- is quite different from that of the other posters on this board....and, no, I don't want to debate it on the level of chat list back and forth one liners ... and cherry-picked, out of context quotes.Just go do some reading and quote actual journalism in your posts instead of this "chat list" one liners style.When you do that, you may find that Giuliani is not a "fascist", any more than the other Republicans running, any more than were other law and order and strong national defense conservative Republicans from Goldwater to Reagan.Does that mean that an Objectivist would agree with all of their positions or find some of them violate individual rights? Well, what do you think?Just to be clear: "fascist" is a term with a very precise historical meaning which involves the advocacy of a *totalitarian government* in which the government controls every significant area of life. It is a very extreme, smear term and I wouldn't want to debate anyone who is so careless as to use it for a mainstream candidate, whether the smear is coming from purported leftists or purported right-wingbers emulating their intellectual sloppiness.And, no, just because you are posting on an informal discussion list, that is no excuse for not bringing your most precise and careful thiking. Do not emulate Lindsay Perigo or Diana H. in their casual, offhand use of the most horrendous, foul smear terms for everyone who angers you or with whom you strongly disagree. I would have thought that observing the websites of those people would teach a lesson in bending over backwards to avoid imitation.As Francisco said,"You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning."[msn encarta - fascism = any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Barbara,Let me put limits on this so as to make it clear. I understood Chris's question to mean whether there was any Objectivist movement-like support for Giuliani. He seemed to be asking a question to avoid people saying things like "all Objectivists do this, or do that."I was unaware that you supported Giuliani until now. We have never discussed this. I certainly do not want to restrict anyone's choice of candidate, anyway. That's what free elections are for.Like it or not, the only vocal movement-like people making a lot of noise in favor of Giuliani have been "the SLOP crowd and nuke 'em all and ask questions later Objectivists." And the reason they like Giuliani is that they hope he does nuke as many Muslims as he can. They have said so openly.I do not put you in that category and I never have. (And I do not think Giuliani would do that, either.)Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Barbara,Let me put limits on this so as to make it clear. I understood Chris's question to mean whether there was any Objectivist movement-like support for Giuliani. He seemed to be asking a question to avoid people saying things like "all Objectivists do this, or do that."I was unaware that you supported Giuliani until now. We have never discussed this. I certainly do not want to restrict anyone's choice of candidate, anyway. That's what free elections are for.Like it or not, the only vocal movement-like people making a lot of noise in favor of Giuliani have been "the SLOP crowd and nuke 'em all and ask questions later Objectivists." And the reason they like Giuliani is that they hope he does nuke as many Muslims as he can. They have said so openly.I do not put you in that category and I never have. (And I do not think Giuliani would do that, either.)MichaelIf Giuliani gets the nomination he will defeat Clinton next year. Romney might defeat her. Now, why do we care about the SLOP crowd?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbara Branden Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 If Giuliani gets the nomination he will defeat Clinton next year.As the saying goes, "From your mouth to God's ear."Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Brant,I personally have no opinion about any of the candidates I have seen so far except in the most superficial manner. The phrase from Robert Ringer "Demopublican Party" comes to mind. The one with the greatest difference I have seen so far is Ron Paul, but even if he were to become President, he would be locked into the system and hog-tied. He is certainly no "old boy" politician who can get things done backstage.(Incidentally, Robert Bidinotto has criticized Ron Paul's understanding of human rights as being intrinsic. From what I have read of Ron Paul, I agree with Robert.)I am strongly against supporting a candidate because one thinks he will engage in genocide. But in that case, my criticism is against the supporter, not the candidate.Maybe that has not been clear yet from the way I wrote.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 The best way to find out what a candidate stands for is to read detailed journalism about his positions, not go by out of context snippets on an Oist board. My understanding of Giuliani's positions from having read journalism --NYT, CSM, National Review, WSJ, etc -- is quite different from that of the other posters on this board....and, no, I don't want to debate it on the level of chat list back and forth one liners ... and cherry-picked, out of context quotes.Just go do some reading and quote actual journalism in your posts instead of this "chat list" one liners style.When you do that, you may find that Giuliani is not a "fascist", any more than the other Republicans running, any more than were other law and order and strong national defense conservative Republicans from Goldwater to Reagan.Does that mean that an Objectivist would agree with all of their positions or find some of them violate individual rights? Well, what do you think?Just to be clear: "fascist" is a term with a very precise historical meaning which involves the advocacy of a *totalitarian government* in which the government controls every significant area of life. It is a very extreme, smear term and I wouldn't want to debate anyone who is so careless as to use it for a mainstream candidate, whether the smear is coming from purported leftists or purported right-wingbers emulating their intellectual sloppiness.And, no, just because you are posting on an informal discussion list, that is no excuse for not bringing your most precise and careful thiking. Do not emulate Lindsay Perigo or Diana H. in their casual, offhand use of the most horrendous, foul smear terms for everyone who angers you or with whom you strongly disagree. I would have thought that observing the websites of those people would teach a lesson in bending over backwards to avoid imitation.As Francisco said,"You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning."[msn encarta - fascism = any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism]There are three basic totalitarian groups. In the order of their awfulness: fascism, Nazism (if you were a Jew, of course, this was as bad as it could get) and communism. In the last everybody was at risk and felt at risk all the time. A lot of Germans enjoyed being Nazis and living under Nazism, until WWII. Some people like to equate fascism with Nazism calling Nazis fascists and Nazism fascism. Not so. The Nazis were much, much worse. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbara Branden Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Barbara,Like it or not, the only vocal movement-like people making a lot of noise in favor of Giuliani have been "the SLOP crowd and nuke 'em all and ask questions later Objectivists." And the reason they like Giuliani is that they hope he does nuke as many Muslims as he can. They have said so openly.I do not put you in that category and I never have. (And I do not think Giuliani would do that, either.)MichaelThank you Michael. And nor do I believe that Giuliani belongs in the "nuke 'em all" category. But you are mistaken in saying that the only Objectivists loudly supporting Guiliani are the people you name; there are many, many others -- in fact, almost every Objectivist I personally know is supporting him. Many of them do not have blogs or post to forums, but they are extremely vocal with their friends and acquaintances and whatever groups they belong to, as I am. My incoming email, for instance, is jammed with mail from his supporters -- and my outgoing email is jammed with my mail supporting him. Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 If Giuliani gets the nomination he will defeat Clinton next year.As the saying goes, "From your mouth to God's ear."BarbaraThat's a new one on me. I hope it's true. The man is incredibly tough and should take New York State. Clinton absolutely needs to carry New York to win. I do not like him very much, regardless, but the U.S. can't afford another Clinton.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 The best way to find out what a candidate stands for is to read detailed journalism about his positions, not go by out of context snippets on an Oist board. My understanding of Giuliani's positions from having read journalism --NYT, CSM, National Review, WSJ, etc -- is quite different from that of the other posters on this board....and, no, I don't want to debate it on the level of chat list back and forth one liners ... and cherry-picked, out of context quotes.Just go do some reading and quote actual journalism in your posts instead of this "chat list" one liners style.When you do that, you may find that Giuliani is not a "fascist", any more than the other Republicans running, any more than were other law and order and strong national defense conservative Republicans from Goldwater to Reagan.Does that mean that an Objectivist would agree with all of their positions or find some of them violate individual rights? Well, what do you think?Just to be clear: "fascist" is a term with a very precise historical meaning which involves the advocacy of a *totalitarian government* in which the government controls every significant area of life. It is a very extreme, smear term and I wouldn't want to debate anyone who is so careless as to use it for a mainstream candidate, whether the smear is coming from purported leftists or purported right-wingbers emulating their intellectual sloppiness.And, no, just because you are posting on an informal discussion list, that is no excuse for not bringing your most precise and careful thiking. Do not emulate Lindsay Perigo or Diana H. in their casual, offhand use of the most horrendous, foul smear terms for everyone who angers you or with whom you strongly disagree. I would have thought that observing the websites of those people would teach a lesson in bending over backwards to avoid imitation.As Francisco said,"You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning."[msn encarta - fascism = any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism]Excellent post sir. "You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning." is one of my favorite Francisco quotes. As an original Goldwater person, I was infuriated with the "cutsey" slogan, "In your heart, you know he's right." and working the trenches in NY City in 1963, we left ourselves open to a very logical counter-attack which was "Yea, but in your mind/brain you know he's wrong."Having lived through the Giuliani administration, I will state that he was effective and efficient in changing my city into a reasonably safe, clean and functioning city. My very smart Grandmother used to explain to me that Mussilini was also effective, he did "make the trains run on time", but she explained that that was not a sufficient trade for freedom.Using "fascist" to describe Rudy is patently false. His "plan" for America is certainly not fascist. He does raise legitimate concerns as to where he would consider subordinating certain "individual" constitutional rights, but it does not even begin to rise to the level that the "Manachurian Candidate"Hilarie Rodham Clinton would reach with her communist assumptions. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Excellent post sir. "You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning." is one of my favorite Francisco quotes. As an original Goldwater person, I was infuriated with the "cutsey" slogan, "In your heart, you know he's right." and working the trenches in NY City in 1963, we left ourselves open to a very logical counter-attack which was "Yea, but in your mind/brain you know he's wrong."But words rarely have an exact meaning which is Good News and Bad News. It is Good News in that language has subtlety and flexibility. It is Bad News when ambiguity is not properly resolved. Many of our words are homonyms, i.e. have multiple meanings depending on intent and context. Look up the word "fair" in the O.E.D.. That simple word has many meanings and some of them are not compatible with each other. There are precising* definitions for some of our words and phrases but many are ambiguous and context dependent and even then there is confusion. Francisco was wrong. He should have stuck to digging up copper and left semiotics and semantics to more competent folks. Ba'al Chatzaf*Refer to either Kelly's or Copi's textbooks on logic for how such definitions work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 I agree that calling someone a fascist is overdone and unnecessary. I wish Objectivists would not do it. I have grave problems with all of the candidates including Ron Paul. Four years of Hillary does make me feel good either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 *Refer to either Kelly's or Copi's textbooks on logic for how such definitions work.Bob,I have not written one. I think you want Kelley. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now