Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 22 minutes ago, william.scherk said: MSK is a declared supporter who is all-in for Trump. He may have discarded the Principle of Charity on the stump, and fallen in the habit of psychologizing Trump doubters out of existence, transmuting them into damaged cognitive retards, trapped in hate and core stories, unworthy of engagement, lost to reason -- but is it Golden to reduce the field of contest to which ox is being gored? William, I echo the wise words of one preeminent Donald Trump. He was asked if he would behave differently as president than he does now and he said of course. Then the questioner (I forget who) asked why he didn't do that now. He answered: "Well, this is a campaign." What do you do as president? You govern. What do you do in a campaign? You win. I'm stumping right now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Michael, I am still amazed at the standard "blank out" in Objectivism. Ayn's I will leave that sewer to you Nathanial. Politics was not far behind and probably installed the pipes for that sewer. We are political animals and to avert our alleged "pure and squeaky clean minds" from reality is fatal, as other Objectivist canons, properly, assert. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 In reply to Adam the Serene: I'm more concerned about George Soros corrupting and directing the outcome of national elections (via voting machines), than I am the fascists (aka military-industrial folks). They're both evil, but Soros is an internationalist, one-worlder, who would like nothing better than an Orwellian 1984-like super-state, One World Order - while the MI complexers are more nationalistic, which is inherently less dangerous, from a global perspective. To put it another way, since Hillary is highly likely to win the election, I don't think it matters much which GOP candidate is selected to run against her. Could be wrong - those coughing fits might actually indicate a serious malady, rather than just inflammation from strain of her vocal cords. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: [Donald Trump] was asked if he would behave differently as president than he does now and he said of course. Then the questioner (I forget who) asked why he didn't do that now. He answered: "Well, this is a campaign." There have been at least two times he answered to the 'different' question. NBC's Lester Holt was asking about "pussy" talk in this segment of a sit-down on Feb 8. Of an earlier encounter with CBS, the Washington Examiner briefly covers some 'different' remarks (they stupidly headline their article Trump Pledges Personality Change As President) : Donald Trump Sunday said he would be a different person if he is elected President and also predicated he will win Iowa's pivotal Republican caucuses next month. Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Trump said that as president, he would be less combative but remain what he called a cheerleader for the United States and a foe of political correctness. "I would probably not talk as much," Trump said. He said he is busy defending himself from attacks on the campaign trail. But the real estate developer said he would continue to hold rallies to buck up Americans. 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: What do you do as president? You govern. What do you do in a campaign? You win. Well, I as a Canadian want to know his policies. I find it creepy to consider that he is selling a pig in a poke. If he cannot be trusted to do as he says he will do, why put any faith in him at all? If anyone thinks he will think differently or act differently in crisis -- they will have to admit or suggest that Trump is putting on a show that may not resemble the White House show. Consider: if the Cruz snooze lose tactics indicate that Trump was once laissez-faire about abortion, is laissez-faire about gay marriage, could not give a New York shit about the awful 'single-payer' medicare model which he said 'works' in Scotland, if he is going to get bum-chummy with Putin -- or not, I don't want an unpredictable container of mystery being inaugurated. From another angle: do we trust Cruz to do what he says he will do? Rubio? Hospice Bush? Do any other candidates say they will "change" their policies, even if only to poach Democratic voters? I imagine the first Trump day at 1600 (and actually, his first day as president-elect). Great thumping briefing books will be set before him. He will have to read like a fiend, and absorb details. I wonder if Mr Trump likes to be briefed. I wonder if he knows the actual parameters of power: "Get me the congressional leadership over here Friday night so I can tell them to approve my fucking guy on the Supreme Court." "Sure, Mr Trump. The Democrats will not all come -- they are still in committee and say they will not be rushed by extra-parliamentary means..They see it as capitulation to your demands to come and be harangued by you, with no cameras.. They ask you to communicate with them through normal channels." "Okay, we'll get some legislation happening, then. Get some legislation happening." "Mr Trump, the president does not initiate legislation, and in any case no legislation to curtail Senate responsibilities will pass the Senate on this matter. We don't have the numbers. May we move on to the Intelligence briefing on Syria? Putin's move last week is an urgent concern at State." "Fuck State, who appointed them? Get me my State guy." "Right here, sir, Secretary of State." "Okay, get Putin on the horn and tell him I am busy babysitting the Senate. I want to be in Moscow by next week." "Sir, you are scheduled to visit Ottawa next week." "Fuck Ottawa and that pussy Trudeau. Get me some Senators Friday. Take these fucking books away. I read the Bible and I read polls. I am going to do the right thing. Get me Senators, get my guy on the court, and don't tell me anything I don't want to hear, or ..." "We are fired. Yes sir. If we can move to the Syria briefing." "I just told you. Fuck it. Melania wants to talk. Maybe I will send her to the Senate. Get me my National Security Advisor." "Right here, Mr Trump." "Why are there so many fucking people in my office? Don't you have something to do besides staring at me? I want a screen put up there, and a TV here. I want marble and brass. And I feel like going out to have a rally and encourage the people tonight . Iowa. They love me in Iowa. Gas up the jet. Get me Ivanka." Edited February 20, 2016 by william.scherk Wee to week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, william.scherk said: There have been at least two times he answered to the 'different' question. NBC's Lester Holt was asking about "pussy" talk in this segment of a sit-down on Feb 8. Of an earlier encounter with CBS, the Washington Examiner briefly covers some 'different' remarks (they stupidly headline their article Trump Pledges Personality Change As President) : Donald Trump Sunday said he would be a different person if he is elected President and also predicated he will win Iowa's pivotal Republican caucuses next month. [...] Well, I as a Canadian want to know his policies. I find it creepy to consider that he is selling a pig in a poke. If he cannot be trusted to do as he says he will do, why put any faith in him at all? If anyone thinks he will think differently or act differently in crisis -- they will have to admit or suggest that Trump is putting on a show that may not resemble the White House show. Consider: if the Cruz snooze lose tactics indicate that Trump was once laissez-faire about abortion, is laissez-faire about gay marriage, could not give a New York shit about the awful 'single-payer' medicare model which he said 'works' in Scotland, if he is going to get bum-chummy with Putin -- or not, I don't want an unpredictable container of mystery being inaugurated..... Well, if The Donald is a different person now than he was several years ago, why should we not expect him to be yet another person once he moves into the White House? Some day, I hope to meet that guy and ask him just who he thinks he is. What I want to know is: is this legal? Doesn't the new President have to be the same person as the one elected two months previously? (Paging Heraclitus: can you step into the same POTUS twice? Or even once?) Also, where can I get me one of them Donald Trump Sundays? Sounds yummy! REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Selene said: Can we get some baseline assumptions agreed upon so we can have a cogent conversation? For example, does anyone dispute the existence of what Ike referred to as the Military Industrial Complex? I answer here -- if live chat is a way to have a cogent conversation (cogent to South Carolina). It is an interesting state with quite a tradition or two. I wonder how much of the SC economy is tied to the M-IC, and how the influence of an M-IC is made operative in political campaigns like the present one. Good opener, Adam. Edited February 21, 2016 by william.scherk Removed chat box, as two on one page bounce between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, william.scherk said: I answer here -- if live chat is a way to have a cogent conversation (cogent to South Carolina). It is an interesting state with quite a tradition or two. I wonder how much of the SC economy is tied to the M-IC, and how the influence of an M-IC is made operative in political campaigns like the present one. Good opener, Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Do you agree with the assumption or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: Well, I as a Canadian want to know his policies. I find it creepy to consider that he is selling a pig in a poke. If he cannot be trusted to do as he says he will do, why put any faith in him at all? If anyone thinks he will think differently or act differently in crisis -- they will have to admit or suggest that Trump is putting on a show that may not resemble the White House show. William, What nobody gets so far is that Trump supporters are walking away from the whole gotcha culture. It's not choose A or B. It's fuck choosing if the gotcha people are offering. Trump supporters look at what Trump has done by party-crashing. Skyscrapers, TV shows, books, beauty pageants, lots of commerce in general, etc. Now he's party-crashing the White House and, as always, the elites are telling him to stay out. All during this elections, the elites have been saying to Trump supporters they are stupid, emotional, duped, racist, homophobic, pigheaded, and on and on. Whenever the pundits can't find any more fault with Trump, they feign the lightbulb going off as if they just discovered the cure for cancer and say the real reason Trump is winning is because his supporters are so uncultured (or any other negative adjective). That's what the elites have been saying, what they keep saying and what they will say once Trump is elected. Guess what they do when they get power? They play power games amongst themselves and exclude everyone else. Now they think it is unfair nobody is listening to them. Frankly, nobody's paying any attention to what Trump is saying either except the elites. Everybody knows he is baiting them to hear them howl. And they are so stupid, he plays the same trick on them over and over and they always fall for it. So now they don't like what Trump says and think it's outrageous. Ho hum... Other than entertainment, who gives a damn what they think? Not me. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Selene said: Michael, I am still amazed at the standard "blank out" in Objectivism. Ayn's I will leave that sewer to you Nathanial. Adam, LOL... That was not her finest hour. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Adam, LOL... That was not her finest hour. Michael Michael: Yes, unfortunately, there were quite a few more. After the split when the separate camps were forming, I would add to my opening conversation and say that she had a lover and an open marriage and, well, you understand how great minds have complicated personal lives and interests. And get right back on message and say: "However, clay feet never bothered me when Ayn speaks brilliantly about individualism, the sanction of the victim, self esteem and America." I truly forget how close I was to Oist ground zero. It was a daily endeavor. I was recruiting constantly. Softly in words and tone, however, I would always get the "negatives" out of the way quickly just in passing in any opening conversation. In my second sentence, I would always quickly mention that she was an atheist and that had nothing to do with her individualism and love for America and real Capitalism which was why I wanted them to read this book. I was carrying Atlas. I remember, about 2-3 years ago, one conversation I had with a woman I met while shopping at Marshals. She struck up the conversation about one of the Rand books I was reading, either Burns or what's her name, the pop-up authoress. I would mention that I studied at NBI and pitch Nathanial's self esteem message. Then I would say and I saw her and heard her in the flesh...this is a powerful core story to almost all Christians and especially Catholics and Evangelicals. At any rate, there is a political way to introduce Ayn's great ideas with a one on one approach, or, to small groups of folks you have recruited in your local Election District. I might take twenty (10) years to build it, however, it will be a formidable political and electoral force that can dismantle this system by decentralizing its authority. We would have a long term chance to Preserve and Protect this Constitutional Republic. If not, well at least I will not have to see a wounded America not understanding why it is dying. A... semi-rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Adam, once you quoted the chat-box, the two instances began to bounce between each other. I deleted my instance. I am putting my thoughts on the thread twists and the results from the beautiful Palmetto State inside your comment, which is weird, and what is weirder is that I am,talking to you but you are not reading or answering. The chat thing is not a good idea after all. I am basically live-chatting with myself on multiple iterations of the same thing. Which is weirdest of all. Who won the pools? I wish I had asked for a big slice of pie if I guessed right. Oh well. If not pie, a treat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Jeb! is out http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/breaking-news-jeb-bush-is-suspending-his-presidential-campaign-219564 .. and in other news, Barbara Bush announces she's entering the race. (kidding, but ever hopeful) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 That didn't take long. Good. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Someone mentioned this is the meet and greet for dancin on Bushs' grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Wait Jeb!, say it ain't so!!!! tears... I seem to remember some OL pundits who said that this Presidential race was going to be Jeb! Bush versus Evita and we should all just accept it and be good little slaves... ONE DOWN A few of those OL pundits were Canadian ... ONE MORE TO GO... A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Gotta love Ann. ~Luke Brinker:#TBTPosted by Ann Coulter on Saturday, February 20, 2016 That Politico story is by Bill Scher and dated May 31, 2015. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 1, 2020 Share Posted January 1, 2020 On 2/20/2016 at 3:21 PM, Selene said: For example, does anyone dispute the existence of what Ike referred to as the Military Industrial Complex? A... Ayn Rand disputed it. From her speech at West Point, as printed in Philosopy: Who Needs It: "There is a special reason why you, the future leaders of the United States Army, need to be philosophically armed today. You are the target of a special attack by the Kantian-Hegelian-collectivist establishment that dominates our cultural institutions at present. You are the army of the last semi-free country left on earth, yet you are accused of being a tool of imperialism — and "imperialism" is the name given to the foreign policy of this country, which has never engaged in military conquest and has never profited from the two world wars, which she did not initiate, but entered and won. (It was, incidentally, a foolishly overgenerous policy, which made this country waste her wealth on helping both her allies and her former enemies.) Something called "the military-industrial complex" — which is a myth or worse — is being blamed for all of this country's troubles. Bloody college hoodlums scream demands that R.O.T.C. units be banned from college campuses. Our defense budget is being attacked, denounced and undercut by people who claim that financial priority should be given to ecological rose gardens and to classes in esthetic self-expression for the residents of the slums." I've been wondering, and a little confused, as to why she thought that. My first take was that she was possibly naive about it. But Roderick Long points out that "{b}ecause Rand called big business a "persecuted minority" and dismissed the military-industrial complex as "a myth or worse," she is often taken as a naïve apologist for the corporatist elite; but she also condemned the "type of businessmen who sought special advantages by government action" as the "actual war profiteers of all mixed economies"; and it's easy to forget that most of the businessmen characters in Rand's novels are statist villains." So now I'm wondering if it was naivete, or a contradiction, if she knew something others didn't, something else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 1, 2020 Share Posted January 1, 2020 (For that matter, re: speaking at West Point: I'm wondering if she ever gave thought about the Prussian influence on America's military training, and its relation to the Prussian educational system that the U.S. adapted, the same system that Objectivists have come to denounce...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 1, 2020 Share Posted January 1, 2020 Rand's view of the United States was naive. "Never engaged in military conquest" is a complete hoot. She painted with broad brush strokes running over nuances as if they didn't exist, but in this case she dumped the can of paint onto the canvass. Her views on the military-industrial complex, whatever they may have been, would not be valuable save as ideological dressing. --Brant 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 1, 2020 Share Posted January 1, 2020 I remember Ike was a President who warned us about the Military - Industrial Complex. From Wikipedia. Military–industrial complex. The military–industrial complex is an informal alliance between a nation's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy. A driving factor behind this relationship between the government and defense-minded corporations is that both sides benefit—one side from obtaining war weapons, and the other from being paid to supply them. The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it is most prevalent due to close links between defense contractors, the Pentagon and politicians and gained popularity after a warning on its detrimental effects in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961. end quote Robert Tracinski is interesting below. The last paragraph may describe President Trump. Peter Some excerpts from “The Unlearned Lessons of Vietnam” by Robert Tracinski in the May, 2004 issue of The Intellectual Activist. They are not in order: A country that is “occupied” by a free nation is an aggressive dictatorship, such as Germany, Japan, and Italy after WWII. The assumption is that such a society has not demonstrated its commitment to free and peaceful government – that it must be taken into receivership, as it were, having its full sovereignty and independence restored only as it demonstrates that it is capable of sustaining a proper form of government. (A. . . ) misconception was stated succinctly in a New York /Times profile about a reunion of Vietnam veterans, one of whom criticized the current strategy in Iraq in these terms: “I thought the lesson learned in Vietnam was that you commit American troops only when you have a clearly defined goal, then you unleash them to achieve that goal without telling them how to do it. I fear that the politicians are getting involved again . . . .” This sounds like a sensible outlook, and many pro-war “hawks” (and well-meaning Objectivists) have stated the point in similar terms. But the debacle in Fallujah was, if anything, a result of too “little” political control over an irrational strategy generated by military commanders in the field. In reality, the problem is neither too much nor too little political involvement in military tactics. The problem is the wrong “kind” of political involvement – a political involvement that demands contradictory goals and thus leads to a confused, disintegrated, contradictory military strategy. To integrate American’s policy from top to bottom, from the White House down to the commanders in the field, requires not an absence of political involvement in military tactics, but the right kind of political leadership: a leadership that will establish policy goals consistently shaped by America’s interests and the requirements of victory, uncorrupted by any element of consensus-worship and appeasement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 1, 2020 Share Posted January 1, 2020 The acknowledged difference between pre and post WWII is in the nuclear age there would be no time to re-arm. Thus we maintained a military draft and a kick ass military. The "complex" was the boat that floated on that water. Not the other way around. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 1, 2020 Share Posted January 1, 2020 It is interesting that someone went back to this old thread about Jeb Bush. I still remember that video of President George W. Bush at a school when he was informed of 9/11. The shock on his face was disturbing. I worried about the people in Times Square last night. Some points to ponder from The Way Back Machine. I suggest you read the complete Chris Sciabara article which should be on the net. Peter From: "May, Dennis To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Peikoff on gun controls Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:32:36 -0500 I wrote: "On the real Earth of today pragmatic military people would view Ellen's scenario as wildly impractical." Ellen Moore wrote: "But Dennis, "pragmatic military people" are not objective or Objectivists, they only have "objectives" that support military controls." Ellen is correct. What I am saying is that Objectivist theory concerning military matters is insufficiently developed to deal with the real world. That is part of why both Objectivist and Libertarian views of practical military matters are seen a sadly lacking. Libertarian military views harm their election chances. Dennis May From: "May, Dennis To: "'atlantis@wetheliving.com'" atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Peikoff on gun controls Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:56:32 -0500 I wrote: >...What I am saying is that Objectivist theory concerning military matters is insufficiently developed to deal with the real world. Daniel Ust wrote: That's a quite general charge. Would you be more specific? A. There is no theory on acceptable private arms ownership. B. There is no ability to fund a military beyond volunteers or a military supported through voluntary contributions. C. There is no theory for pre-emptive action. D. It seems little was understood concerning the Cold War and WoMD even though Rand was alive during the time. I wrote: >That is part of why both Objectivist and Libertarian views of practical military matters are seen as sadly lacking. Daniel Ust wrote: >Ditto. A large number of Libertarians seem to embrace failed policies of military isolationism and/or pacifism. There seems to be almost no understanding of the cost and technology required to fight in modern wars. I wrote: >Libertarian military views harm their election chances. Daniel Ust wrote: >There're a few ways to respond to this. One is to ask how much this really impacts election returns. Do you really believe if libertarian candidates suddenly became much more skilled at military matters – assuming they are not now compared with the average candidate -- they would sweep more offices? They would be less likely to be dismissed out of hand. >Another is to ask what do you think can be done to rectify this? Education would seem to be the only cure. I suspect it would also require dumping most of the Libertarian history and essentially starting a new party with a different name. Dennis May C hris Sciabara. 2004/ Liberty & Power: Group Blog Peter Schwartz and the Abandonment of Rand’s Radical Legacy, Part I Introduction. For several years now, I’ve been engaged in a critique of the foreign policy writings of various Objectivists, who, I believe, have abandoned Ayn Rand’s radical insights on the nature of U.S. politics. For those who are not Ayn Rand fans or who don’t care one iota what Objectivists have to say on U.S. foreign policy, this week’s five-part series (which begins today) might not provide the requisite excitement. But for those readers who are classical liberals and libertarians, and who see, on a daily basis, the erosion of the noninterventionist tradition of liberalism, this series will have some merit. Suffice it to say: In fighting for Rand’s radical legacy, I’m fighting simultaneously for that noninterventionist tradition that stands opposed to the welfare-warfare state, while seeking to comprehend the inextricable relationship between the “welfare” and the “warfare” part of that equation. In my essay, “Understanding the Global Crisis: Reclaiming Rand’s Radical Legacy,” I argued that too many Objectivist writers in the post-9/11 era were suffering from historical amnesia. It’s as if they have forgotten most of what Rand said on the issue of foreign policy; one will be hard pressed to find any quotes from Rand’s various foreign policy essays and lectures in any of the books, journals, and online periodicals to which Objectivists have contributed. It’s not fair, of course, to suggest that a lack of references to Rand is a sign of abandonment. Clearly, these writers have been influenced by Rand’s broad ethical and political precepts, especially those concerning egoism and individual rights. But there is a disturbing pattern among Objectivist writers to ignore Rand’s actual foreign policy pronouncements, which continue to have relevance for the modern world. When such writers are writing explicitly on the subject of foreign policy, that ignorance has far-reaching implications for the quality and persuasiveness of their arguments. This pattern is on display yet again in the newest book by Objectivist writer Peter Schwartz, The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America (Ayn Rand Institute Press, 2004)—which has exactly one quote from Rand, and this quote does not derive from any of her work on foreign policy. In his preface to the Schwartz monograph, Ayn Rand Institute Executive Director Yaron Brook tells us that this work is part of a series on “The Moral Foundations of Public Policy.” For Brook, “[f]oreign policy is neither a starting point nor a self-contained field. It is, rather, the product of certain ideas in political and moral philosophy. ... It has failed because of the bankrupt moral philosophy our political leaders have chosen to accept: the philosophy of altruism and self-sacrifice” (5). Schwartz’s work goes a long way toward explaining these ideas, and it succeeds in highlighting some very important issues. (Some of this work derives from a series of articles that Schwartz published back in March and April 1986, “Foreign Policy and the Morality of Self-Interest,” in The Intellectual Activist.) Objectivist Harry Binswanger has gone so far as to say that Schwartz has provided us with “the foreign policy Bible for America and any other free society.” Ultimately, however, the book fails to recapture Rand’s radical framework of analysis, which, from a political standpoint, seeks to understand and overturn U.S. government policies at home and abroad. Of course, Rand’s radicalism is not primarily political; it is a methodological radicalism, a radical way of thinking upon which political and social change is built. Karl Marx once said: “To be radical is to grasp things by the root” (“The Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”). Though Rand repudiated Marx’s communism and its collectivist premises, she championed the notion of the “radical in the proper sense of the word”; as she explained: “‘radical’ means ‘fundamental.’” For Rand, “the fighters for capitalism have to be, not bankrupt ‘conservatives,’ but new radicals, new intellectuals and, above all, new, dedicated moralists” (“Conservatism: An Obituary”). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 1, 2020 Share Posted January 1, 2020 I saw President Trump's comment about Iran's complete destruction if they attack us as is happening in Iraq right now. If the terrorists / protesters start to get murderous we will undoubtedly shoot them. Will Iran react with another 9/11 attack? They will want to. They are the same type of moral savage who will target civilians. So, will we use conventional weapons against Iran in retribution, if necessary? I think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 1, 2020 Share Posted January 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said: Rand's view of the United States was naive. "Never engaged in military conquest" is a complete hoot. She painted with broad brush strokes running over nuances as if they didn't exist, but in this case she dumped the can of paint onto the canvass. Her views on the military-industrial complex, whatever they may have been, would not be valuable save as ideological dressing. --Brant With the points Roderick Long pointed out about Rand's seeming naivete vs. her opposition to statism and cronyism (didn't she know better? She should have known better?), it makes me wonder how much of what you said goes to the influence on Rand of Isabel Paterson and The God of the Machine. 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