Recommended Posts

Obama Speaks about Ayn Rand

I'll find a video later to embed (non is available yet), but here is what Obama said today at Georgetown University:

Then you have cold-hearted free market capitalist types who... you know... are reading Ayn Rand and... you know, think everybody is moochers. (sic)


Go here to see the video for now. The video is from C-SPAN3.

Since Obama just now talked openly about Ayn Rand, I predict he will keep doing so for the rest of his term. Ditto for his minions.

Boy did he screw up. These folks will give a lot of publicity to Rand, then scratch their heads in wonder about why her ideas are spreading.

Other than that, let's see if his presidential muscle can stand up to her.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FIRST OF ALL GOING BACK TO WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER ABOUT HOW WE CHARACTERIZE THE WEALTHY AND THAT THEY TAKE THIS EXTRA WEALTH FROM THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS, THESE ARE BROAD ECONOMIC TRENDS. TUR BOW CHARGED BY TECHNOLOGY AND GLOBALIZATION, A WINNER TAKE ALL ECONOMY THAT ALLOWS THOSE WITH EVEN SLIGHTLY BETTER SKILLS TO MASSIVELY EXPAND THEIR REACH AND REMARK AND MAKE MORE MONEY AND IT GETS MORE CONCENTRATED AND THAT REINFORCES ITSELF. BUT THERE ARE VALUES AND DECISIONS THAT HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED THAT PROCESS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE ERA THAT BOB WAS TALKING ABOUT, IF YOU HAD A COMPANY IN THAT TOWN, THAT COMPANY HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF SOCIAL RESTRAINTS ON IT BECAUSE THE CEO FELT IT WAS A MEMBER OF THAT COMMUNITY AND THE SENSE OF OBLIGATION ABOUT PAYING A CERTAIN WAGE OR CONTRIBUTING TO THE LOCAL HIGH SCHOOL OR WHAT HAVE YOU WAS REAL. AND TODAY THE AVERAGE FORTUNE 500 COMPANY, SOME ARE GREAT CORPORATE CITIZENS AND SOME ARE GREAT EMPLOYERS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE AND THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT HOW THEY ARE JUDGED. AND THAT MAY ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT WHERE PREVIOUS CEO OF A COMPANY MIGHT HAVE MADE 50 TIMES THE AVERAGE WAGE OF THE WORKER, THEY MIGHT NOW MAKE 1,000 TIMES OR 2,000 TIMES. AND THAT'S NOW ACCEPTED PRACTICE INSIDE THE CORPORATE BORDER. THAT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD PEOPLE. IT'S JUST THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FREE FROM A CERTAIN TYPE OF SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS. AND THOSE VALUES HAVE CHANGED. AND SOMETIMES TAX POLICY HAS ENCOURAGED THAT AND GOVERNMENT POLICY HAS ENCOURAGED THAT. AND THERE'S A WHOLE LITERATURE THAT JUSTIFIES THAT AS WELL THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO GET THE BEST CEO AND THEY ARE BRINGING THE MOST VALUE AND THEN YOU DO TIP INTO A LITTLE EYE YAN RAND, WHICH ARTHUR, YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST TO ACKNOWLEDGE BECAUSE I'M IN DINNERS WITH SOME OF YOUR BUDDIES AND I HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THEM. IF THEY ARE NOT ON A PANEL, THEY'LL SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE CREATED ALL THIS STUFF. AND WE MADE IT AND WE'RE CREATING VALUE AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS WHERE IT GOES. SO THERE'S LESS COMMITMENT TO THOSE PUBLIC GOODS, EVEN THOUGH A GOOD ECONOMIST WHO HAS READ ADAM SMITH'S MORAL SENTIMENTS WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ACTUALLY WE'RE UNDER INVESTING OR WE HAVE TO -- THAT'S POINT NUMBER ONE. POINT NUMBER TWO ON THIS WHOLE FAMILY CHARACTER VALUES STRUCTURE ISSUE, IT'S TRUE IF I'M GIVING A COMMENCEMENT IN MOORE HOUSE THAT I WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOUNG BLACK MEN ABOUT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY AS FATHERS THAT I PROBABLY WILL NOT HAVE WITH THE WOMEN. I MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR THAT. THE REASON IS BECAUSE I AM A BLACK MAN WHO GREW UP WITHOUT A FATHER. I KNOW THE COST I PAID FOR IT. I ALSO KNOW THAT I HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BREAK THAT CYCLE AND AS A CONSEQUENCE I THINK MY DAUGHTERS ARE BETTER OFF. AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT -- [ APPLAUSE ] >> THAT IS NOT SOMETHING --

 

http://www.c-span.org/video/?325989-1/conversation-president-obama-poverty-us

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama: "...cold-hearted, free market, uh, capitalist-types who, uh, you know, are reading Ayn Rand...[slow derisive laughter]... and, uh, you know, think everybody's moochers [sic]..."

Barack Obama and George Bush, and everybody else in the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court, are complete and total political ignoramuses. They've been brain-washed into Welfare Statism all of their lives. And so they believe this utter claptrap, rejecting liberty and laissez-faire as being somehow naive, foolish, tyrannical, evil, etc. Thus these hopeless, pathetic, fatuous, loser clowns like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are stunning political morons from hell. However...

Every now and then in their worthless, destructive lives these guys hear some (what I call) neoliberal political comment from someone somewhere, and they quickly recognize that it is the truth, or at least that it well might be. And thus they feel tremendous fear, as they nervously mentally and psychologically rush past it, their cowardice, dishonesty, lack of integrity, and depravity on fairly full display.

I recall certain comments California governor Jerry Brown made back in 1978 regarding Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Ed Hall and his party. It made me think he knew the truth about libertarianism all the way back then. But pretty much all political professionals secretly know it by now -- all politicians and pundits. The problem is they're all liars and cowards. They want to keep their jobs, they're uncomfortable with a major change in the status quo, and they're all serious scumbags as well.

And so political freedom isn't ascended to by mankind. Our great leaders in academia, the media, and the gov't bureaucracy all lie to and mislead the rightfully apathetic and indifferent ruling General Public -- which nevertheless counts on them to educate and inform them, and to tell them the truth about things. But the intellectual and political leaders don't do it. So here we are. The broad populace in our democratic world fears the "cold-heartedness" of political liberty.

So we're stuck with the warm-hearted semi-slavery of Welfare Statism. Our liberty is massively curtailed, and our material, cultural, and spiritual lives are grossly impoverished by Big Brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argumentum Gregorium:

We are getting what we deserve because we elected them.

That is a generic "we."

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama: "...cold-hearted, free market, uh, capitalist-types who, uh, you know, are reading Ayn Rand...[laughter]... and, uh, you know, think everybody's moochers [sic]..."

Kyrel,

Thanks.

I like that version a lot better. It's not only more accurate, the style conveys the thinking process.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argumentum Gregorium:

We are getting what we deserve because we elected them.

That is a generic "we."

A...

I didn't vote for that S.O.B. but I got him anyway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barack Obama and George Bush, and everybody else in the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court, are complete and total political ignoramuses. They've been brain-washed into Welfare Statism all of their lives. And so they believe this utter claptrap, rejecting liberty and laissez-faire as being somehow naive, foolish, tyrannical, evil, etc. Thus these hopeless, pathetic, fatuous, loser clowns like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are stunning political morons from hell. However...

These people are very sophisticated politically. They have gotten away with plunder and murder for decades and there his been no revolution. Not even an attempted revolution aborted by force....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barack Obama and George Bush, and everybody else in the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court, are complete and total political ignoramuses. They've been brain-washed into Welfare Statism all of their lives. And so they believe this utter claptrap, rejecting liberty and laissez-faire as being somehow naive, foolish, tyrannical, evil, etc. Thus these hopeless, pathetic, fatuous, loser clowns like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are stunning political morons from hell. However...

These people are very sophisticated politically....

No, they're insects. Obama, Bush, etc. are helpless doofuses blindly wandering the political universal -- almost totally clueless and lost -- desperately seeking guidance from anyone anywhere. They also have no power to speak of. All their sophistication and intellectual authority lies with Marx, Lenin, Keynes, Galbraith, Stiglitz, Krugman, etc. This is the philosophical foundation they entirely stand upon. These Welfare Statists -- and political, economic, and social dolts and lowlifes -- have intellectually crushed Locke, Smith, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and Rand. That's the problem.

Sad! But neoliberalism is rising. Eventually, these very-vulnerable Bad Guys -- with all their vacuity and depravity -- stand a very good chance of being defeated once and for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad! But neoliberalism is rising. Eventually, these very-vulnerable Bad Guys -- with all their vacuity and depravity -- stand a very good chance of being defeated once and for all.

By whom?

Jeb Bush, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Chief Justice Roberts?

Isn't the basic tenet of Objectivism/objectivism that you are able to recognize reality?

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama mentioned Ayn Rand again in the same discussion. He might even have done it more times, but I didn't see the full discussion yet--that is, if I decide to see it. 
 
See here on Raw Story the article posted today: Obama slams CEOs who read some Ayn Rand and feel entitled to stiff their workers
 
Here's the video given in that article:
 

 
The quote about Ayn Rand (starting around 1:40):
 

... where a previous CEO of a company might have made 50 times the average wage of the worker, they might now make a thousand times or two thousand times. And that’s now accepted practice inside the corporate boardroom. Now, that’s not because they’re bad people. It’s just that they have been freed from a certain set of social constraints.
 
And those values have changed. And sometimes tax policy has encouraged that, and government policy has encouraged that. And there’s a whole literature that justifies that as: well that’s what you’d need to get the best CEO and they’re bringing the most value, and then you do tip into a little bit of Ayn Rand...

 
In other words, Obama is totally aware that "values have changed" due to Ayn Rand's influence.

 

He's sneaky, so if he is talking openly about her, I'm sure he has something in the works to combat her influence. Regardless of how covert his efforts get, however, including the story wars part, I believe it will backfire.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard view on virtuous radical groups and human progress is this: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Objectivism is no longer being ignored. Eventually the laughter will stop too. Then the intellectual and physical battle will begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard view on virtuous radical groups and human progress is this: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Objectivism is no longer being ignored. Eventually the laughter will stop too. Then the intellectual and physical battle will begin.

Really?

And what "consensus" of experts of "virtuous radical" groups, whatever that means, did you get that "view" from?

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going off topic, but I wonder why he wouldn't talk to young women about the parental responsibility of young men? It's the women who make them fathers, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice he's sitting in front of an Admiral's flag which denotes military authority as in his being CIC of the armed forces. You'll find this flag in federal and many other courtrooms. The rubric is federal law is not predominant but military law is. However, that's a huge stretch. For that I think you need a ship.

Obama and those guys around him have been going for the American throat since 2007 if not earlier. This video just proves it beyond all and any doubt.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I miss something who is the "he" is that Brant and DD are referring to?

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I miss something who is the "he" is that Brant and DD are referring to?

A...

Yep. You did.

--Brant

no more help from me on this one (heh, heh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant made and intriguing comment on an aspect of Obama's yakking. Emphasis added.

Notice he's sitting in front of an Admiral's flag which denotes military authority as in his being CIC of the armed forces. You'll find this flag in federal and many other courtrooms. The rubric is federal law is not predominant but military law is. However, that's a huge stretch. For that I think you need a ship.

fringeflag.png

USFlagAdmiralty.jpg

Isn't this a fiction of the so-called Freeman movement, the notion that golden fringes on a flag denote authority other than that of 'the state' or 'the Crown'?

I think you mean Admiralty flag (as this is the Freeman nomenclature) rather than Admiral Flag. Admirals have a flag because they are 'flag officers,' commanders. So there are a variety of US Admiral flags. Since the USA deems non-Navy commanders to be flag officers, that adds up:


Army_General_Flags.jpg

USMC_General_Flags.jpg

Air_Force_General_Flags.jpg

Navy_Admiral_Flags.jpg

The fringes-on-flags argument for supervening, separate and ultimate court is nonsense. No one using Freeman admiralty-law wack has been able to further themselves or their customers in actual courts in the USA and Canada. To a man they have been shot down. The notion is one of many legal defense gambits peddled by gurus who are essentially con men.


I am sure I could make a pun on the fringe nature of the con-men selling Freeman justice packs, where the advice is to make a ridiculous jurisdictional claim due to fringey flags.

You are the pun-man here, Brant. i think you could tidy this up perfectly. I am a bit too non-fun in the face of fringe-y woo.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I miss something who is the "he" is that Brant and DD are referring to?

A...

The same "he" you quoted making the statement I referenced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

Run run run from the puny pun pun.

Apparently President Eisenhower through his position as Commander In Chief did the mischief. It gives a little more zip to the Presidential ship. No law was needed. It's all cosmetic. No one has ever claimed any extra powers from having that flag. All it does is lay on the gravitas.

--Brant

looks good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He mentioned her in his Rolling Stone interview right before the last election:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12690&page=1

Dennis,

I remember that.

Today, though, I think there is a difference. In the last election, Obama's focus was to try to marginalize Ryan and he had an election to win.

Now he is looking at some serious downtime for his remaining term, so I believe the fight is going to get real philosophical. I think Obama is aware enough to know if his projects are going to stand any chance at surviving the change to the new president after 2016, especially if that new one is a Republican, he needs to expose philosophical roots now and make his case. Hopefully (for him), make a case that will have long-lasting repercussions.

In that sense, it is not enough to mock Ayn Rand or use condescension about her as a weapon against a political rival. He has to defeat her on the idea level. I believe he is going to try to do that, or get his cronies to try.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going off topic, but I wonder why he wouldn't talk to young women about the parental responsibility of young men? It's the women who make them fathers, after all.

Excellent question and here is his answer, admittedly it is a terrible answer, however, he gets to wallow in his fatherless victim status which of course helps make him into the angry marxist he is today...

At Georgetown, he didn't. He said that at a historically black college such as Morehouse, "I will have a conversation with young black men about taking responsibility as fathers that I probably will not have with the women of Barnard. And I make no apologies for that. And the reason is, is because I am a black man who grew up without a father and I know the cost that I paid for that." He said that "I tried to understand what it is that my father had gone through, and how issues that were very specific to him created his difficulties in his relationships and his children so that I might be able to forgive him, and that I might then be able to come to terms with that."

Aw, poor child. Come to mommy's busom and she will make you feel complete.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-15/obama-unfiltered

The title of the article is "Obama Unfiltered," in other words, Obama when I am not completely lying to you crackers persona..

A...

Post Script:

Isn't he a white man also?

Or does his blackness blot out his whiteness.

It is so nice that he has resolved his racialism.

MV5BMTU1ODkzNDExM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTU4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...