caroljane Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 There are some posters -not trolls and none on OL-- on O-sites who seem so angry, so frustrated, so unbalanced and deluded that I truly hope they have no access to firearms. I mean that seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 . . .Some fraction of the electorate, a fraction unknown to me, decides how to vote based on one side of this issue or the other side of it. . . .Gallup now has a 2012 report on aggregate weighting of the abortion issue for registered voters.2008. . .You and I differ greatly in our expectation of what would happen to Roe in the event that Romney is able make more Republican appointments to the Supreme Court. If he wins the election, I’ll just have to keep my fingers crossed that he will betray his commitment on that.. . .Expectation (cf. 2010) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Here is what Jennifer Burns just said about Paul Ryan.Jennifer Burns: On Ayn Rand and the Election(Sorry, the video does not embed here on OL.)The left is having a field day with this. Notice that I got this off the Huffington Post.It's funny how they all talk about what Ayn Rand would have thought of Paul Ryan, but they leave out speculations about what she would have thought about Barack Obama--or the situation of having to choose between them.Or that Ayn Rand supported Richard Nixon over George McGovern (holding her nose to keep out the stench, of course) for precisely the same reason I believe she would have supported Romney-Ryan over Obama-Biden--and in exactly the same way.All our other politicians after Nixon have not had the moral collectivist clarity Obama does, so it was easy for her to sit out the elections up to her death. Philosophically, it was six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. You got bigger government either way, but no outright ham-handed communist doctrines posing as enlightened altruistic socialism.In this election, however, the philosophy is too on the surface to ignore. It is way beyond the standard fight of big differences on the essentials of nonessential matters. It is actually big differences on critical essentials.(I hate channeling Rand, but I'm pretty sure I'm right here. It doesn't matter, though. May she rest in peace. I think those ideas and I'm sure many others do, too.)Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 In this election, however, the philosophy is too on the surface to ignore. It is way beyond the standard fight of big differences on the essentials of nonessential matters. It is actually big differences on critical essentials.They always say that. In Atlas Shrugged, who were the conservatives? That's who you would be voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Michael,I'm just repeating what Ayn Rand did with Nixon.Maybe she wasn't consistent with Atlas Shrugged in your view?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Biggers Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Rand also opposed Ronald Reagan (even though he was arguably as conservative as Barry Goldwater - who she had supported) precisely because of Reagan's mixing religion into his defense of capitalism. Of course, this is exactly what Paul Ryan is now doing ("Rand who? I'm a Thomas Acquinas fan!" - paraphrase of his interview with National Review Online). Based on her opposition to Reagan, I see no reason to believe that she would have supported Romney-Ryan, which is even more religious-based than Reagan ever was!So, how can we explain Yaron Brook's (lukewarm) support of Ryan, even after he dis-avowed Rand? Go figure.I suppose, on "pragmatic" grounds, we should support Romney-Ryan, but aren't Objectivists opposed to pragmatism?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Jerry,I think the term "pragmatism" is misused to characterize support for Romney-Ryan. Was Ayn Rand "pragmatic" when she went to a government funded school, even though she opposed government involvement in education?There are times when the only game in town does not have your ideal alternatives. So you keep to your principles and do what you can with what in reality is available. In other words, within that alternative, you accept the constraints as a reality you can do nothing about and choose the closest to your principles you can, but you keep doing other stuff to advance your principles.A pragmatist claims there are no principles other than what works--usually short-term at that.I don't know of a single person interested in Objectivism who holds that view.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Was Ayn Rand "pragmatic" when she went to a government funded school, even though she opposed government involvement in education?You think that’s bad? Even after she made it to the US, she traveled on government funded roads! And to make it worse, she didn’t drive herself, she had Frank do the driving, as though she could off-load the karmic guilt for the evil she was knowingly engaging in. Kind of like me and this vote swap thing with Kat. We’re all going to hell, I mean who do we think we’re kidding? Oh, and Rand used government issued paper money!! She even paid her poor innocent housekeeper with those dread marks of the beast. I mean it’s bad enough if you want to go to hell, but to take others with you? Egad!! So anyway, back to Paul Ryan, tonight’s the debate, and I hear Biden has been training for the battle as intensively as he can. Here’s some leaked footage with him and his sparring partner Van Jones.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_1U7xgAeYObama prepped with Kerry, no wonder he was beaten, he was expecting to debate a corpse. More or less like last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Hot off the presses, er airwaves, er cable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Here is what Jennifer Burns just said about Paul Ryan.Jennifer Burns: On Ayn Rand and the Election(Sorry, the video does not embed here on OL.)The left is having a field day with this. Notice that I got this off the Huffington Post.It's funny how they all talk about what Ayn Rand would have thought of Paul Ryan, but they leave out speculations about what she would have thought about Barack Obama--or the situation of having to choose between them.Or that Ayn Rand supported Richard Nixon over George McGovern (holding her nose to keep out the stench, of course) for precisely the same reason I believe she would have supported Romney-Ryan over Obama-Biden--and in exactly the same way.All our other politicians after Nixon have not had the moral collectivist clarity Obama does, so it was easy for her to sit out the elections up to her death. Philosophically, it was six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. You got bigger government either way, but no outright ham-handed communist doctrines posing as enlightened altruistic socialism.In this election, however, the philosophy is too on the surface to ignore. It is way beyond the standard fight of big differences on the essentials of nonessential matters. It is actually big differences on critical essentials.(I hate channeling Rand, but I'm pretty sure I'm right here. It doesn't matter, though. May she rest in peace. I think those ideas and I'm sure many others do, too.)MichaelIf Ayn Rand were still alive she'd be too drunk to comment on any political race.--Brantit's not understanding or not understanding capitalism, it's about Austrian vs Keynesian economics and in which Greenspan came a cropper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I thought Biden looked and acted like the cranky old man holding court at a bar, the type that slaps the counter every time someone says anything he doesn’t like, which is often. Usually this type pontificates about sports teams, who’s going to win next Sunday, that kind of thing. And he’s used to having enough yes men surrounding him, telling him he was right last week (when he wasn’t) such that his self-image is one of personal infallibility. Meanwhile I thought Ryan did fine. His closing was quite good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Michael,Rand not only turned sharply against Ronald Reagan after Roe v. Wade, she also talked up Gerald Ford in 1976.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Robert,Thanks for the correction.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 And he's used to having enough yes men surrounding him, telling him he was right last week (when he wasn't) such that his self-image is one of personal infallibility. Correction, or rather addendum:The type I'm thinking about here doesn't necessarily have a platoon of yes-men surrounding him. More likely, no one bothers arguing with him anymore because they've found that there's no point, no one can get through, and he always ends up making a mess on the carpet. He's simply that kind of A-hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Biden tried to divert attention from the Libyan debacle. Only a fool laughs at serious issues. The Vice President interrupted 70 or 80 times. He has impulse control problems. His bouts of manic laughter were unsettling. He reminded me of an axe wielding Jack Nickolson in “The Shining:” “Hey Paul? Here’s Joey!” For four years children have been in charge and it shows. It’s time to elect grownups. Dirty tricks were pulled by Biden and the moderator. At times, it seemed like Paul Ryan was debating two rude, dishonest people.Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Biggers Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 "At times it appeared that Ryan was debating two rude, dishonest people!"There is a certain type of argument which, in fact is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of psychological pressure...The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt, or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under the threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: "Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea."The Argument from Intimidation dominates today's discussion in two forms. In public speeches and print, it fluorishes in the form of long elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat....But (it also) comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies not on what is said, but on how it is said - not on content, but on tone of voice.The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity, "Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?" And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim.... the ensuing dialogue goes something like this...All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on -t hat their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum - that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.excerpted from "The Argument from Intimidation," The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, 1964.pp. 139-144.My question: in addition to requiring his staff to read Atlas Shrugged, did Paul Ryan follow his own advice? The above article by Rand is almost 50 yeats old. The liberals have been using this type of argument for much longer than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 excerpted from "The Argument from Intimidation," The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, 1964.pp. 139-144.You beat me to it. I was already planning to make a YouTube video this weekend using quotes from that essay to accompany images of Biden's smirking etc. Along with some intercuts of smirking chimp material, and maybe other examples from the bestiary. There must be a braying ass, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Hot off the presses, er airwaves, er cable... This piece was pretty well done. No glaring caricatures that I could detect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Biggers Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Anne Heller, as usual, adopts her responses to the audiences she is addressing. Speaking before the Atlas Society's meetings, she is non-critical towards Rand; but when she has been on the mainstream media (usually promoting her bio of Rand) , she is far less complimentary and gives them the raw meet they want to hear.The CNN piece listed above points out some of the issues regarding Rand and Ryan. However, after that piece runs on Youtube, a number of other "avatars" appear pointing to other presentations about Rand and/or Ryan. Look for the face of Laurance O'Donnell of MSNBC and click on his piece. Of course, he is using the issue to embarrass Ryan, but O'Donnell's presentation is longer and provides much more information on Rand's actual positions - which deviate sharply from Paul Ryan's positions. Additionally, O'Donnell is remarkably accurate - and objective - in describing Rand's positions, often excerpting her TV appearances, especially Johnny Carson's show. The end result is to make Ryan look like just an expedient politician using Rand when it was safe to do so, but turning on her and her philosophy when the heat is applied to him by some Catholic liberals (or conservatives, in the case of his interview with National Review Online)..What would Rand say about Ryan's record and statements? O'Donnell is deadly accurate on this and points out how Rand opposed Reagan for precisely the same positions that Ryan now advocates. WATCH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Jerry,Maybe this is what you mean:Paul Ryan rewrites romance with Ayn Randby Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBCThin and repetitious, unfunny romance joke, but shows what a creep the man is. According to Gerald Celente, in highschool he was voted boot-licker of the year.Atlas Shrugged? What has this guy ever produced? He's been a professional politician -- voting for the "Patriot" Act and other bills to match -- almost all his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Anne Heller, as usual, adopts her responses to the audiences she is addressing. Speaking before the Atlas Society's meetings, she is non-critical towards Rand; but when she has been on the mainstream media (usually promoting her bio of Rand), she is far less complimentary and gives them the raw meat they want to hear.Jerry,From the CNN segment and some recent op-eds by Anne Heller, I think you are right.In one of the op-eds, she actually suggested that Paul Ryan would be no better from Rand's point of view than Wesley Mouch.In all of this, Heller is ignoring Rand's actual stated opinions of various politicians, including Gerald Ford. Not to mention her love-hate affair with Richard Nixon.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 The CNN segment also features Onkar Ghate.In his recent public appearances, Onkar Ghate has come across to me as earnestly nerdy. Not the worst public face for the Ayn Rand Institute...Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Anne Heller, as usual, adopts her responses to the audiences she is addressing. Speaking before the Atlas Society's meetings, she is non-critical towards Rand; but when she has been on the mainstream media (usually promoting her bio of Rand), she is far less complimentary and gives them the raw meat they want to hear.Jerry,From the CNN segment and some recent op-eds by Anne Heller, I think you are right.Robert and Jerry,Heh.Maybe she's more interested in selling her book than promoting the ideas?Just a thought...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Maybe she's more interested in selling her book than promoting the ideas?Michael,I don't doubt that.But it would be nice to know what Ms. Heller actually thinks of some of the ideas.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 . . .I am looking forward to the debate between Ryan and Biden. . . .Winning a debate is one thing, winning the arguments another. Determining who had winning arguments is better assessed by reading transcripts of a debate, rather than by witnessing the debate. This debate was a case in point.About those arguments: “Why Ayn Rand’s Absence from Last Thursday’s Debate Benefits Big Government”* 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