Trump Pardons Susan B Anthony

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

Trump announces recently a very important person to be pardoned, naturally getting everyone charged and excited and guessing who it might be.  As it turns out, it was someone important, all right... Nope, it wasn't Edward Snowden, Julian Assange or Michael Flynn, none of the heroes or whistleblowers who risked their lives, their sacred honor and literally everything they had in the fight to save our republic and freedom from annihilation, nope, they're not worthy of a pardon, says Trump.  But guess who is?  Yep, you got it, it's Susan B Anthony!  https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=trump+pardons+Susan+b+anthony&cat=web&pl=opensearch

Long, stunned silence.

Susan B Anthony?  Who's that?  Oh, right, that's that chick who voted illegally some thirteen or fourteen decades ago.  Well, Trump could be right, and Susan B Anthony could well deserve a pardon, for all I know, but, given our current dire situation, methinks Susan B Anthony could have waited for her pardon until after the Wall is built and our southern border sealed, after Obamacare is dismantled and burned on our scrap heap, after birthright citizenship is executive ordered into our history, after the country is fully opened after the Covid-19 scam and outright lie and Fauci, Gates, Soros, and associates arrested and locked down without bail and awaiting trial, after the CIA and FBI are stormed by US Marines and shut down and abolished and everyone involved arrested and thrown in a military prison and all their records made public, after American patriots Julian Assange, Michael Flynn and Edward Snowden's rights are fully restored and they are free to do as they like, after Bill and Hillary Clinton are arrested and thrown in prison without bail and awaiting trial, after our immigration is completely shut down and all illegal aliens are thrown out of the country with no chance of citizenship ever.  Yep, after all that is done, Susan B Anthony can get her pardon.  

Much more important things to do, Mr. President, than panhandle female voters before your election.  

Susan B Anthony, if you can hear me, congratulations, girl.  Though you deserve credit for many items, your stupid "right to vote" should never have come without your conscription into military service, like all the boys get, whether or not they like it.  Why should you be able to vote our boys into wars we don't need to fight or out of wars we need to fight--on your whim--on your "vote"?  Better idea, let's put an end to "voting" altogether and arrest anyone who tries to stage an election and give them a life sentence without the possibility of parole.  After all, look where voting has got us.  The results are self-evident.

G'd day, Mr. President, Susan B Anthony.'  The Unabashed Pragmatic tips his hat and bows out of the White House Ladies Luncheon after crashing it to deliver an important message.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

U,

Why are there two repeat threads?

If it's OK with you, I am going to delete the other one. That way we can focus the discussion here. (EDIT: I just deleted it whether it is OK with you or not. So there.  )

On the substance, I've been reading around on this.

Consider the following.

Everyone on our side was disappointed it wasn't Assange to get the pardon or someone of that current importance. So were a lot of people on the other side. 

Yet, with the pardoning Susan B. Anthony and the bloodthirst to oppose anything and everything Trump says and does, the fake news mainstream press is now ginning up a campaign to cancel her.

They are trying to cancel and diminish and stain Susan B. Anthony.

 

I think this is going to be a vote-getter for Trump. Especially among women on the fence who will suddenly see all these vicious attacks from the anti-Trump press against an historical female icon who fought for women's suffrage.

This is quite funny when you see it from that lens.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

Word on the street is that this ties in with the election, that Trump did this to signal that "the election is safe for everyone."

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

U,

Why are there two repeat threads?

If it's OK with you, I am going to delete the other one. That way we can focus the discussion here. (EDIT: I just deleted it whether it is OK with you or not. So there.  )

On the substance, I've been reading around on this.

Consider the following.

Everyone on our side was disappointed it wasn't Assange to get the pardon or someone of that current importance. So were a lot of people on the other side. 

Yet, with the pardoning Susan B. Anthony and the bloodthirst to oppose anything and everything Trump says and does, the fake news mainstream press is now ginning up a campaign to cancel her.

They are trying to cancel and diminish and stain Susan B. Anthony.

 

I think this is going to be a vote-getter for Trump. Especially among women on the fence who will suddenly see all these vicious attacks from the anti-Trump press against an historical female icon who fought for women's suffrage.

This is quite funny when you see it from that lens.

Michael

Repeat threads because the first one was edited after I accidentally hit back-page.  I thought I was in edit mode.  When I hit submit it posted again above the first one.  The second one is the edited (punctiation) one.

I've no argument with anything you've said here.  And I stand firm on my original arguments.

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

4 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Word on the street is that this ties in with the election, that Trump did this to signal that "the election is safe for everyone."

Sure, it wasn't one of Trump's campaign promises, and he didn't wake up a couple of days ago and say, "Y'know, that Susan B Anthony sure got a raw deal, and it's always  a really really risky political move to pardon anyone living, sooooo..."

Of course, it's staged, someone thought this stunt up as a really big virtue signal and showtime for my Trumpy.  Nothing wrong with that, and it does fit the Trump style.  He is quite the showman after all.  I was just trying to point out the fact that the country is sliding into the drink and there might be better ways to spend our pardons and our time, for the time being anyway.  If he scores a hit pardoning Susan B Anthony, just think what a big hit he could score pardoning, Assange, Snowden and Flynn all on the same day!  Homerun!

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

U,

What makes you think President Trump is not contemplating all this?

One of the reasons he is president and others are not is that he has an impeccable sense of timing.

You either shoot off a big gun at the right time and go kaboom all over the enemies, or you shoot off way too early because the people next to you are impatient and blow away some trees.

Tree killing will not get you elected. It will kill some trees though. It will kill them dead and deceased.

Michael

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

U,

What makes you think President Trump is not contemplating all this?

One of the reasons he is president and others are not is that he has an impeccable sense of timing.

You either shoot off a big gun at the right time and go kaboom all over the enemies, or you shoot off way too early because the people next to you are impatient and blow away some trees.

Tree killing will not get you elected. It will kill some trees though. It will kill them dead and deceased.

Michael

I wouldn't venture to guess what he's contemplating.  It wouldn't do any good.  Rather it does me good to know what's going on around me as best I can.  It's obvious why he's doing it.  You've said it yourself.  

Trump has an impeccable sense of a great many things.  But he's the president, not a private citizen.  So what's important is what his skills can do for us.  And I still don't give a rip about a dead, coffined woman, voting, women's rights (why aren't we concerned with men's rights, too?) and all the rest of this nonsense.  It's stupid.  My goal was to make that clear.  I can see it hasn't worked.  Furthermore, no one appears to be bringing anything new to this topic.  

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

U,

This is turning into a competition?

How odd...

OK.

If I ever want to learn how not to become president or not to stay president, I will take your words to heart.

Until then, I will look elsewhere when I study presidents. 

Good luck with your goal.

I don't know why anyone would have a goal like the one you just didn't make clear, but I do know I couldn't give a shit about it.

It means absolutely nothing to my life or my values.

Is that competitive enough?

 

Michael

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

U,

This is turning into a competition?

How odd...

OK.

If I ever want to learn how not to become president or not to stay president, I will take your words to heart.

Until then, I will look elsewhere when I study presidents. 

Good luck with your goal.

I don't know why anyone would have a goal like the one you just didn't make clear, but I do know I couldn't give a shit about it.

It means absolutely nothing to my life or my values.

Is that competitive enough?

 

Michael

I see you love Trump.  He's a riot, all right, but I didn't and will not vote for him.  He's not Andrew Jackson enough for me.  I'm voting for Vlad' Putin.  He's my guy.  'Make America Russia Again'.  And I'm still trying to figure out how this Kamala Harris thing is going to work out.  My understanding of it is she wasn't born in the United States.  How can she be president?  According to the laws, she can't.  So how is it she gets to be VP?  I'm confused.  Or maybe people just don't give a rat's behind about the laws anymore.  That's right.  Because when all the so-called "leaders" are breaking the law--there is no law anymore, but just a struggle to survive.  That's where we're at now.  Anyway, Brother Nathanael has the scoop on Kamel Hairz, for anyone who might be interested: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qFdtcFZkLzT1/

And now you say this is a competition.  I never saw it that way.  That's news to me.

But you're right about Susie B and this topic.  It has no value anymore.  What's done is done.  A dead  woman walks free... er...  um... so to speak, while the living, the innocent who desperately need vindication and their freedom continue to suffer needlessly.  "Make Trump President Again". OK, they will.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

And now you say this is a competition.  I never saw it that way.  That's news to me.

U,

When people are living in a story rather than using a story to help them navigate reality, they can't see the obvious.

9 hours ago, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

My goal was to make that clear.  I can see it hasn't worked.  Furthermore, no one appears to be bringing anything new to this topic.  

There's your competition.

It's you against the stupid dolts here on OL. If only they were not so slow... sigh... if only you could learn how to talk to the uneducated and the mentally dull so they would understand your awesomeness...

 

I call this running against the wind...

You'll never outrun it.

Competition is actually a good thing, and winning is a good thing, but not when the story is you've already won against the dolts yet you keep competing... you feel compelled to tell the dolts and anyone looking you've beaten them before you start, but then you start...

Reversing the sequence like that is a story only, not a story that reflects reality. The correct sequence is you compete, then you win or lose. The incorrect sequence is you win, then you compete. (Ironically, that's a surefire way to lose.)

If you want to find your awesomeness, look inward, not to others. I'm sure it's there, too. Dolts will never provide you your own awesomeness. When you look to them for that, all you see is doltness.

Besides, as the Sufis say, we become what we gaze upon...

Once you find your inner light and use it on the darkness to see the dolts, you will see they're not dolts... and then life starts getting real interesting... even competition...

And how do you compete from that perspective? Why, that's easy. You start by achieving things. Great things is better, but good things will do. Then point to those achievements... Consider it an eligibility requirement to enter the good competitions.

Michael

[william.scherk]

On 8/18/2020 at 12:12 PM, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

[...] after the country is fully opened after the Covid-19 scam and outright lie and Fauci, Gates, Soros, and associates arrested and locked down without bail and awaiting trial, after the CIA and FBI are stormed by US Marines and shut down and abolished and everyone involved arrested and thrown in a military prison and all their records made public, after American patriots Julian Assange, Michael Flynn and Edward Snowden's rights are fully restored and they are free to do as they like, after Bill and Hillary Clinton are arrested and thrown in prison without bail and awaiting trial [..]

Pigs will fly ...

1 hour ago, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

I'm voting for Vlad' Putin.  He's my guy.  'Make America Russia Again'.  And I'm still trying to figure out how this Kamala Harris thing is going to work out.  My understanding of it is she wasn't born in the United States. 

She was born in Oakland, California.  She will be accepting the VP nomination at the Democratic convention tonight.  I assume voters who intend to write in Putin on the ballot are prepared for disappointment.

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

53 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Pigs will fly ...

She was born in Oakland, California.  She will be accepting the VP nomination at the Democratic convention tonight.  I assume voters who intend to write in Putin on the ballot are prepared for disappointment.

Well, we're good to go then.  A Marxist and tyrannical dictator in the Black House again.  Neato.  We're really making progress.  

Or, to hear the pundits tell it, the Marxists, in having nominated, Jo & the Ho have handed another election to Drumpf and his Drumpfkins. 

Where's Ol' Hickory when ya need him?  They don't make men like hi... er... um... I meant, they don't make men anymore. 

We're doomed.  And it's just as well. 

When Vlad comes over to annex Alaska, I'll go be a Russkie then.  Fun!  Wholesome!  On the other hand, if Drumpf would wise up and stop catering to his Jooz and the xenophobic terrorist State of Israhell, he would see that his and our best interests lie not in being friends with terrorists, but in being friends with Vlad.  The world would tremble at our feet then.  It's a nice thought anyway.

For those who still believe, may your chains set lightly upon you and all that jazz.  G'day, mates!

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

U,

When people are living in a story rather than using a story to help them navigate reality, they can't see the obvious.

There's your competition.

It's you against the stupid dolts here on OL. If only they were not so slow... sigh... if only you could learn how to talk to the uneducated and the mentally dull so they would understand your awesomeness...

 

I call this running against the wind...

You'll never outrun it.

Competition is actually a good thing, and winning is a good thing, but not when the story is you've already won against the dolts yet you keep competing... you feel compelled to tell the dolts and anyone looking you've beaten them before you start, but then you start...

Reversing the sequence like that is a story only, not a story that reflects reality. The correct sequence is you compete, then you win or lose. The incorrect sequence is you win, then you compete. (Ironically, that's a surefire way to lose.)

If you want to find your awesomeness, look inward, not to others. I'm sure it's there, too. Dolts will never provide you your own awesomeness. When you look to them for that, all you see is doltness.

Besides, as the Sufis say, we become what we gaze upon...

Once you find your inner light and use it on the darkness to see the dolts, you will see they're not dolts... and then life starts getting real interesting... even competition...

And how do you compete from that perspective? Why, that's easy. You start by achieving things. Great things is better, but good things will do. Then point to those achievements... Consider it an eligibility requirement to enter the good competitions.

Michael

You're talking about followers, the herd, the dolts.  I never mentioned they were dolts.  I don't run with the herd.

I'm a Sigma.  And I don't vote.  And especially for Marxists and Drumpfs.  For those who consider voting an "achievement", I've got a bridge I wanna sell ya.  Achieve that, please.  Cash only.

We're supposed to be rugged individualists.  We're headed in the opposite direction.  Can't you see that?  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

59 minutes ago, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

For those who consider voting an "achievement", I've got a bridge I wanna sell ya.

U,

Do you really think people on OL consider voting to be an achievement?

Good God!

Have you ever heard of Ayn Rand? The name of this place is "Objectivist" Living after her ideas. Have you ever read anything by Rand on achievement?

Do you even know what an achievement is?

Let me help.

Achievement is building things like making music, building houses and skyscrapers, finding the cure for cancer, things like that.

I, personally, have a backlog of achievements and I have written about them. Others around here have, too. Even the lurkers have (the ones I have known offline.)

What the hell have you done achievement-wise? So far, you proclaim you are Sigma and you fled to the interior of the country.

Big fucking deal.

If you want to be a comic book hero and a legend in your own mind, that's your business and more power to you.

But here's the thing. I don't mind when people challenge OL people intellectually. That's part of what this forum is for. But when they set up strawmen so they can crow victory over the dolts--and then they attribute that garbage in their skulls to OL members?

If you want to know one of my buttons, that's it.

The intelligent people who read and participate here is no accident. This was built. By me. Then others showed up and started chipping in (including by reading OL regularly) so they get some of the credit, too.

OL is one of my achievements. Don't piss on it is you want to stay on my good side.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

I see you love Trump.  He's a riot, all right, but I didn't and will not vote for him.

U,

Is this what all the bullshit is about?

You have Trump Derangement Syndrome and keep trying to figure out a way to jigger it into the conversation?

And you're frustrated because it's not working, nobody is rising to your bait?

That's what it's starting to look like.

Michael

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

U,

Is this what all the bullshit is about?

You have Trump Derangement Syndrome and keep trying to figure out a way to jigger it into the conversation?

And you're frustrated because it's not working, nobody is rising to your bait?

That's what it's starting to look like.

Michael

Actually, I like Trump.  He's a loner, a Sigma, like me.  Only he's a lot richer.  I am not jealous of the man, but I would like to have some of that cash.  Wow!  

I have a few achievements of which I am proud enough, I suppose.  But I am not bent on achievement in the way you appear to be.  I've written two books, not published, yet, perhaps they never will be. I am a martial artist and scientist and achieved recognition in four disciplines.  I am an end in myself, you could say.  I am my main achievement.  I am not bothered by anything.  I'm good to go.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

I have a few achievements of which I am proud enough, I suppose.  ... I've written two books, not published, yet, perhaps they never will be. I am a martial artist and scientist and achieved recognition in four disciplines.

U,

Cool.

I like it.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

A pragmatic...someone who goes which ever way the wind blows and fails to stand by his convictions.  What works today may not work tommorrowwwww.  Friend today, stab you in the back next week.  “Sorry pal it was the pragmatic thing to do.”

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

12 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

A pragmatic...someone who goes which ever way the wind blows and fails to stand by his convictions.  What works today may not work tommorrowwwww.  Friend today, stab you in the back next week.  “Sorry pal it was the pragmatic thing to do.”

If I stab someone in the back, it means and demonstrates--they're not my pal.  

[Peter]

17 hours ago, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

I'm good to go.  

You could go to Area 51. I'll put in a word for you.

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

1 minute ago, Peter said:

You could go to Area 51. I'll put in a word for you.

Been there already.  Couldn't even get close.  

[Peter]

17 hours ago, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

Actually, I like Trump.  He's a loner, a Sigma, like me. 

And U wrote: "And especially for Marxists and Drumpfs." You may be losing fans, because when you call President Trump, "Drumpf" it is like saying sarcastically, "Hey? I like the little bastard." People begin to detect a liar.

[Peter]

Why would an objectivist support President Trump with spirit and emotion? Time to refresh? These old, oft repeated letters are from a fan and colleagues of Ayn Rand. They give a hint as to why I say that under President Trump we are freer, better off, and safer using reason and rationality . . . the “OH what a relief he is emotion” may be felt after the 2020 election.  Peter  

From: RogerEBissell To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Objectivism???? Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:25:08 EST. Nathaniel Branden wrote: >The more I read the postings on this list, as I have been doing lately, the more I wonder why anyone would think this is "an Objectivist list."

>An "Objectivist" who does not agree that rationality is volitional is not an Objectivist.

>An "Objectivist" who does not think there are such things as natural rights is not an Objectivist.

> An "Objectivist" who preaches racism is not an Objectivist.

> None of these issues are marginal to Objectivism but reflect essential principles. And if this is not supposed to be, in some serious sense, an Objectivist list--what is it supposed to be? (I warned myself that it was a mistake to start reading these postings again, but I wouldn't listen.)

Greg Johnson commented: >Is Nathan conducting another purge? Old habits die hard!

Greg, that's way over the top. I think it's a legitimate question, but I also think that it's too easy to pick one's own pet list of views that can qualify one as being or not being an Objectivist.

Nathaniel has pointed out (correctly, in my opinion, but I will argue that point elsewhere) that the Objectivist metaphysics as Rand viewed it is "minimalist." Well, I think that in terms of what should qualify a person as "Objectivist" should also be termed most generally and succinctly.

For instance, in "About the Author" in the appendix to ~Atlas Shrugged~, Rand said "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Do you agree with that? Then you agree with Rand's statement of the essence of her philosophy. Are you then an Objectivist?

=============================================

Or, at the sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of ~Atlas Shrugged~, Rand presented the essence of her philosophy "while standing on one foot."

She said: Metaphysics: Objective Reality ("Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so.")

2. Epistemology: Reason ("You can't have your cake and eat it, too.")

3. Ethics: Self-Interest ("Man is an end in himself.")

4. Politics: Capitalism ("Give me liberty or give me death.")

Do you agree with these principles? If so, are you then an Objectivist?

=============================================

Later, in 1962, in her column "Introducing Objectivism," Rand gave "the briefest summary" of her philosophy:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 3. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means t the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own ~rational~ self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. 4. The ideal political-economic system is ~laissez-faire~ capitalism. it is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as ~traders~, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. it is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and ~no man may initiate the use of physical force against others~. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force ~only~ in retaliation and ~only~ against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Do you agree with this summary? If so, are you then an Objectivist?

==========================================

Finally, in "Brief Summary" (1971), Rand said:  "If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest [e.g., capitalism and egoism] follows. This--the supremacy of reason--was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism."

Do you agree with this statement about the supremacy of reason? Then you agree with Rand on the essence of Objectivism. Are you then an Objectivist?

===============================================

The preceding gives more than enough guidance for us to judge other list members as to whether they are Objectivist -- at least in their basic orientation, if not in every application. Revisit, then, Nathaniel's comments (including the one in a separate post about whether Rand's view on a woman President was part of Objectivism):

1. rationality as volitional -- that appears ~nowhere~ in any of the statements of the essence of Objectivism, though it is a position argued by many Objectivists (and others). I would maintain that rationality includes the self-aware monitoring and directing of one's mental processes, while also maintaining that, in any given situation, one ~could not~ have done otherwise than one did in that situation. Others, such as Bill Dwyer, Gayle Dean, Dennis May, etc. also hold some variant of this view, sometimes known as "soft determinism" or "compatibilism." Is free will or volition compatible with determinism? I think the jury is still out on that question, and that any attempt to limit Objectivism to those holding the incompatibilist position is premature at best.

2. natural rights -- this is a key principle of Objectivism. I agree with Nathaniel that one cannot be an Objectivist and reject this position. However, if someone could logically prove that rights are incompatible with egoism or rational self-interest, that would be a very important development. Some have argued such a view on this list (the "prudent predator", etc.), but I have found their arguments unconvincing and Bill Dwyer's (and others') rebuttals to be headed in the right direction. The best (though very technical) argument for the compatibility of egoism and rights is by Eric Mack. He first set this out years ago in John Hospers' journal, ~The Personalist~ (in the early 1970s, I think).

3. anti-racism -- again, I think that this is solidly Objectivist. It would take a miracle, in my opinion, for anyone to convince me that racism is compatible with the basic principles of Objectivism. Rand's essay in ~The Virtue of Selfishness~ is still the best statement on the subject.

4. woman President -- Rand's claim that a woman could not rationally want to be President is, in my opinion, one of her lamest assertions. I think that she generalized her own sexual and gender psychology, defining away the rationality of any woman/women who felt and thought otherwise.

Now, for any of the above to be argued or rebutted, in terms of the foundational principles of Objectivism, a person has to use logic and facts. Any "good faith" attempt to do so ought to be accepted by others on the list, since we are, after all, trying to be "new intellectuals" here, not Attilas or Witch Doctors. The supremacy of reason -- that's supposedly what governs us here!

So, ~volitional~ reason? reason ~without rights~? Rational ~racism~? rational ~women Presidents~? Fine, let's discuss, and let's refrain from suggesting that those disagreeing with us on those issues is, by that very fact, irrational and thus not an Objectivist or welcome on an Objectivist discussion list. Best to all, Roger Bissell

From: Nathaniel Branden To: atlantis Subject: ATL: for the record Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 09:28:01 -0800. For the record, I am not suggesting that anyone who challenges some premise of Objectivism should be off this list.   If this list is understood to be a site where people who share some or all or few of the premises Objectivism wish to exchange ideas about Objectivism and its implications and its possible problems, there's nothing wrong with that. What I said was that if one does not agree with one or some of the most fundamental premises of Objectivism, then it is misleading to call oneself an Objectivist.

I often call myself a "neo-Objectivist" and explain that I agree with the broad fundamentals but have significant points of disagreement, above all in the sphere of psychology and to some extent in ethics.  Although more and more I dislike labeling myself at all, because there is always the need for a long explanation.

What I also claim is that I know a good deal about what Objectivism is and is not. Nathaniel Branden

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re "Analytical Philosophy" Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 01:51:09 EST Ariana wrote, about the Sophists: << Ayn Rand and others have lamely IGNORED these word (and world) destroyers -- and silence here implies consent.  >>

Silence does *not* necessarily imply consent. Ayn Rand's purpose was not to write a critical history of philosophy; it was to present her own views in her fiction and nonfiction. If she singled out certain philosophers as good or as bad -- Aristotle and Kant, for instance -- it was because she saw as them especially important in various ways. But one could name a host of philosophers she did not discuss. Do you really think that that implied she agreed with every one of them?

As another, closer-to-home example, if some on Atlantis do not respond to the arguments of others we do not consider worth arguing with, and say so, do you think our silence implies agreement? I have predominantly ceased arguing with our racists because I believe most on Atlantis understand them quite well; does that mean I agree with them? All of us must makes choices about what we want to spend our time and effort upon. To fail to criticize someone does not imply that we agree with him.

Ariana further wrote: <<I, for one, am proud to say that I've NEVER read Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" nor Russell's "Mathematical Principles" nor any of Kant's “Critiques." Nor do I ever plan to -- if I live to be 300!>>

Am I to take this -- since you have not given a thorough critical analysis of their works -- that you agree with them? Barbara

[The Unabashed Pragmatic]

8 minutes ago, Peter said:

And U wrote: "And especially for Marxists and Drumpfs." You may be losing fans, because when you call President Trump, "Drumpf" it is like saying sarcastically, "Hey? I like the little bastard." People begin to detect a liar.

Fans?  I wasn't aware of having any fans.  I follow no one and I won't have anyone following me.  

He's Drumpf for all the things he hasn't done but should have done by now and could have easily done by now.  But he is a salesman, a liar, a showman, and a renigger, et. al.  And he's always been all of that, obviously, since long before becoming a politician.  That is his trade.   And he's Trump because, well, he's Trump, an original, a lone wolf, and he's gotta do what he's gotta do, like the rest of us.  I admire that.  He's your ordinary, average American with skin in the game.  He's one of us.  A very likeable, kind, generous, entertaining and capable fellow caught up in the trap of irrationality that looms large and will swallow us whole.  He's gotten a taste of a new kind of power and it appears he is unphased by it.  Amazing.  And he's let a lot of people down.  I don't hang my hopes on the president.  Never have.  I forgive nothing.  I forget nothing.  He does not pay my way.  I did not vote for him, I will not vote for him.  Though I have to say I was surprised and delighted when he was elected.  Surprised because it actually happened.  Delighted because of the steel toed boot in the face to Hillary Clinton and the Left in general.  You see, I despise my enemies with a whole and full heart and I glory in their destruction.  But Trump is not my enemy.  He's just another public figure in a faraway land whom I'll never meet and who does not know me or the lay of my land from shine-o-la; the head of the intrusive, invasive Federal beast that should never have been and should not be. I don't fight for Trump.  I fight for freedom.  

[william.scherk]

Show me what you are made of ...

22 hours ago, The Unabashed Pragmatic said:

if Drumpf would wise up and stop catering to his Jooz

OK. Thank you.