Super Tuesday Primary

[Barbara Branden]

If the final candidates are McCain and either Hillary or Obama -- I'll write-in George Washington, the man who didn't want power.

Barbara

[BaalChatzaf]

If the final candidates are McCain and either Hillary or Obama -- I'll write-in George Washington, the man who didn't want power.

Barbara

Not so. See: The Making of a President: 1776 by Marvin Kitman.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

If the final candidates are McCain and either Hillary or Obama -- I'll write-in George Washington, the man who didn't want power.

Barbara

This glorifying of Founding Fathers while ignoring one right under our noses, Ron Paul, is inexcusible.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne,

Honest and forthright as possible, I am a friend and ally. Not asking you to agree with me.

W.

Since I am in this business. Today's Republican primary/caucus races are extremely critical to Huckabe. There is still a small, under 10% chance of a brokered convention or a statement convention.

Lets wait to see what three way race delivers. Paul is running at about 10% in the Virginia primary.

Unfortunately, Paul's field organization, which is my specialty area sucks.

Adam

[Mikee]

If the final candidates are McCain and either Hillary or Obama -- I'll write-in George Washington, the man who didn't want power.

Barbara

This glorifying of Founding Fathers while ignoring one right under our noses, Ron Paul, is inexcusible.

Shayne

Shayne,

I've followed Ron Paul off and on for years. He doesn't resemble George Washington in the slightest in my opinion. I suppose having a different opinion that yours is "inexcusable" in you eyes. Do you think the "founding fathers" would have done nothing in the face of the twenty years of attacks by the islamists? Say it's "our fault" for not being totally isolationist and having relations with the world? Ron Paul's pacifism earns my contempt. His mix of modern libertarianism and "constitutionalism" and wrapping himself in the mantle of "founding father" impresses me not at all. The United States is still a great hope, it has to continue to exist for there to be a future for freedom. Head in the sand will not work.

[sjw]

I've followed Ron Paul off and on for years. He doesn't resemble George Washington in the slightest in my opinion. I suppose having a different opinion that yours is "inexcusable" in you eyes. Do you think the "founding fathers" would have done nothing in the face of the twenty years of attacks by the islamists? Say it's "our fault" for not being totally isolationist and having relations with the world? Ron Paul's pacifism earns my contempt. His mix of modern libertarianism and "constitutionalism" and wrapping himself in the mantle of "founding father" impresses me not at all. The United States is still a great hope, it has to continue to exist for there to be a future for freedom. Head in the sand will not work.

You do not know what you are talking about. You have been brainwashed by Peikoff, Bidinotto, and the mass media. You should do yourself a favor and look into Ron Paul's actual positions rather than reading that rag Bidinotto publishes.

Ron Paul is not a pacifist. For example, he voted for invading Afghanistan to take out the terrorists responsible for 9/11. He advocates a strong national defense. Calling him a pacifist is ridiculous.

He is not an isolationist. He supports free trade and open diplomatic relations with all nations. But perhaps what you mean by "isolationist" is: someone who doesn't want to bomb and invade and keep military bases in other nations. Why do you think it's a good idea to have hundreds of military bases around the world?

His position is in line with Jefferson's: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.

You should also learn a little history. They didn't start attacking us until after we started mucking around in their politics in the 50's. If you invade a foreign nation and start pumping out their oil don't blame them for invading you back. Now I am not under the impression that the businessmen who set up the oil wells should not have been able to keep them as a matter of moral principle, but it was not the business of the American Government to protect them either.

Shayne

[Mikee]

sjw,

I expected insults and you did not disappoint. I drew my conclusions about Ron Paul more than a decade before I'd heard of Robert Biddinotto et al.

You are a true believer and it is pointless to argue with you.

[sjw]

I expected insults and you did not disappoint. I drew my conclusions about Ron Paul more than a decade before I'd heard of Robert Biddinotto et al.

Sure you did. That's why you have not even a smidgen of evidence to back up your ridiculous claims. Ron Paul is clearly not isolationist, that is pure propaganda invented by warmongering imperialists and their brainwashed followers.

Edit: At least Robert Bidinotto rightly characterizes Ron Paul as a "non-interventionist" as opposed to a "pacifist" in his new article. So perhaps you didn't just get your wrong-headed views from Bidinotto.

You are a true believer and it is pointless to argue with you.

I'm the one willing to connect my claims to evidence and you call me a "true believer"--nice Orwellian twist.

I'm tired of second-handers like you dashing in to throw insults at me and Ron Paul regarding the Iraq war and then cowardly stepping aside when I raise the point of: Why were we ever mucking around in the middle east to begin with. You're just like O'Reilly, who shut Ron Paul down when he tried to explain the history of that region, "We don't need a history lesson Dr. Paul". Objectivists should know better that history is crucial.

Shayne

Edited February 10, 2008 by sjw

[Selene]

I expected insults and you did not disappoint. I drew my conclusions about Ron Paul more than a decade before I'd heard of Robert Biddinotto et al.

Sure you did. That's why you have not even a smidgen of evidence to back up your ridiculous claims. Ron Paul is clearly not isolationist, that is pure propaganda invented by warmongering imperialists and their brainwashed followers.

Edit: At least Robert Bidinotto rightly characterizes Ron Paul as a "non-interventionist" as opposed to a "pacifist" in his new article. So perhaps you didn't just get your wrong-headed views from Bidinotto.

You are a true believer and it is pointless to argue with you.

I'm the one willing to connect my claims to evidence and you call me a "true believer"--nice Orwellian twist.

I'm tired of second-handers like you dashing in to throw insults at me and Ron Paul regarding the Iraq war and then cowardly stepping aside when I raise the point of: Why were we ever mucking around in the middle east to begin with. You're just like O'Reilly, who shut Ron Paul down when he tried to explain the history of that region, "We don't need a history lesson Dr. Paul". Objectivists should know better that history is crucial.

Shayne

Actually Shayne, it was Eric Hoffer who created the term true believer that is being refered too here.

"The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements is a social psychology book by Eric Hoffer published in 1951 which discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism. The book evaluates and sometimes disparages Communists, Fascists, Nationalists, and early Christians. Part of Hoffer's thesis is that movements are interchangeable and that fanatics will often flip from one movement to another. " , Wikipedia.

Also, I did my master's thesis on:

An Aristotelian Analysis of the Objectivist Movement, wherein, Eric Hoffer's works, as well as other works on social, political, economic, religious, philosophical, etc movements.

The issue I would like to address with you is the "shrillness" of your linguistic tone and your constant resorting to ad hominem semantics.

I am new here and although the argument here is empassioned, it should not be demonizingly didactic.

Maybe its the oxygen content of the air in Utah.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Mikee is not a secondhander and you are not a true believer. Do you wish to persuade or simply rant? Calling people names because they disagree with you is ranting, not presenting facts. Nobody is ever persuaded by a rant. They are persuaded by repetition of sound facts, over and over. Reason always sinks in over time to reasonable people.

I have stayed out of much of this debate, but sometimes I have to say something. The fact is that the USA has been engaged in a particularly blatant form of interference in the activities of foreign countries ever since the end of WWII and the Bretton Woods convention, where the world's currency for international transactions stopped being pounds and francs and started becoming USA dollars. This interference was done and maintained by design and plan.

I have noticed blindness, not rebuttal, in the Objectivist world about this. When you discuss foreign policy with many of the proponents of weird concepts like preemptive war being NIOF, the most you will get is a bromide dismissal like, "Obviously not everyone in the USA government is a saint, but..." or something like that. If you dare to mention that the USA government's support of local dictators pisses off the people the dictators persecute/repress and whose family members the dictators torture/kill, they accuse you of being an anti-patriot, pacifist or whatnot. I don't know how noticing a blatant fact can be unpatriotic, but there it is. That's what these people believe and I believe they are sincere. I would like to help them see, but all I know how to do effectively is to repeat facts. Calling them names while they are doing the same does not make anyone see anything except their own hatred.

On the other side, many people on the Lew Rockwell site, antiwar.com, and places like that overstate the USA government's interference in foreign countries as imperialism and world conquest. A purer case of oversimplification could not be devised. It might be true that some multinational companies who consistently do business by being in bed with foreign dictators are interested in imposing their monopolies on other countries, but it is silly to imagine that the USA government is doing something like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia tried to do. Those who attack the USA government for imperialism and so forth are just as blind in their hatred as Objectivists (and conservatives, for that matter) who ignore the local impact of supporting dictators and training/funding their secret police forces.

The fact is neither one nor the other. Blindness is not a cure for reality. The real reason the USA is out there is that parallel to Bretton Woods, the USA leaders at the time decided that the USA would become the policeman of the world so that an atrocity like WWII would never happen again. This was the reasoning (and was given as reason to dollarize the world). That has been the official guiding principle behind the government's foreign activities ever since, especially when the military has been used. That is why there are all those military bases all over the place and that was the reason for wanting to contain Communism.

The execution of that policy has been horrible at times, being based on a noxious form of pragmatism when dealing with local dictators and on outright cronyism with respect to military supplies, international trade, constructing infrastructures and rebuilding bombed out countries. (One of the most ridiculous examples of mixing cronyism with altruism to make it look good to the world was dropping food in containers that looked like bombs to Afghans after the invasion and including in the diet black pepper, peanut butter and some other goodies like that—while the recipients got sick from food their bodies were not used to processing and blew themselves up by mistake, the fatcat government suppliers laughed all the way to the bank as they slapped their good old boys in power on the back.)

But often the global cop policy has been well-defended, especially with the containment of Communism, genocides, nuclear war and so forth. This is one aspect we can be proud of and it is in our interests to have done so.

Unfortunately, because of the abuses, Europe got sick of relying on the dollar. A bunch of countries banded together and made the euro. This now competes with the dollar for international transactions. To me, that signals the beginning of the end of USA's role as policeman of the world. It will still take a long time to settle, but I believe that the peak has been reached and we are now on the down-slide.

The good Ron Paul did with his candidacy was to remind the mainstream media and the American people in general of some of our fundamental values. By this having happened, they will hold all politicians to a higher standard. I think that is a wonderful thing.

In today's Demopublican context, however, I never thought Paul had a chance in hell. And if by some fluke he did get elected, I think he would become a lame duck with Congress overriding everything he wanted to do. I also think his administration would be riddled by an elementary form of corruption coming from the anti-American wing of his anarcho-capitalist cronies tasting real power for the first time. As Lord Acton stated, "Power corrupts..."

My real vote is still with the checks and balances system of government our Founding Fathers so brilliantly designed. They did not pretend that power does not corrupt. They accepted that fact that this can happen with the best of men and they contained it. Even so, look at how much the thirst for power has expanded the government's encroachment on our liberties.

My banner is not just individual rights. It is individual rights plus checks and balances.

Michael

[Mikee]

The founding fathers from the beginning established diplomatic relations with other countries, made treaties, trade agreements, established allies and recognized the importance of the US governments’ role in diplomacy. They were nothing if not fully aware of the importance of trade and diplomacy. No one ever said it was easy or the process is ever done. The military might of the United States is important to our ability to establish agreements with other nations just like our courts are important to establish the credibility of contracts in normal life. There is nothing about Ron Paul that resembles the founding fathers even remotely in this respect. We have a representative government. I would not like Ron Paul to represent my interests in this world. "Why were we mucking about in the middle east in the first place" you say. "Mucking about"?? Only a true isolationist could refer to the treaties, alliances, trade agreements and commercial enterprises of this great nation as "mucking about". I believe you have made my argument.

Edit: Michael, I did not see your post before posting.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Mikee

[sjw]

The founding fathers from the beginning established diplomatic relations with other countries, made treaties, trade agreements, established allies and recognized the importance of the US governments’ role in diplomacy. They were nothing if not fully aware of the importance of trade and diplomacy. No one ever said it was easy or the process is ever done. The military might of the United States is important to our ability to establish agreements with other nations just like our courts are important to establish the credibility of contracts in normal life. There is nothing about Ron Paul that resembles the founding fathers even remotely in this respect. We have a representative government. I would not like Ron Paul to represent my interests in this world. "Why were we mucking about in the middle east in the first place" you say. "Mucking about"?? Only a true isolationist could refer to the treaties, alliances, trade agreements and commercial enterprises of this great nation as "mucking about". I believe you have made my argument.

People complain at my insults while ignoring your blatant irrationality. An "isolationist" is not for free and open trade. If you're going to persist in calling noninterventionism isolationism and pacifism then you deserve nothing but insults.

Shayne

[Mikee]

"Free and open trade" is not possible without this "mucking about" as you call it. You are an idiot. An extremely dense one, the black hole of idiots. Any attempt to shine a light on you reflects only darkness.

[sjw]

"Free and open trade" is not possible without this "mucking about" as you call it. You are an idiot. An extremely dense one, the black hole of idiots. Any attempt to shine a light on you reflects only darkness.

Evidently it went over your head, but my point was that it's better to insult *and* base your arguments on facts than to be polite but engage in nothing but irrationality. Now you're just engaging in insults and irrationality. An even worse combination. On top of that you're not only an irrationalist, but a hypocrite as well.

By "mucking about" I mean sending in CIA operatives and installing puppet governments and waging war for the natural resources in foreign lands. If you think it's obvious that we should be doing those things then clearly I'm not the "extremely dense one".

Shayne

[Mikee]

I will leave you to your ravings.

[emb021]

"Free and open trade" is not possible without this "mucking about" as you call it. You are an idiot. An extremely dense one, the black hole of idiots. Any attempt to shine a light on you reflects only darkness.

Free and open trade is not "mucking about". They refer to 2 different things. "treaties, alliances, trade agreements and commercial enterprises of this great nation" are not "mucking about" and is not want Ron Paul is speaking of.

A MSK mentioned, and anyone who keeps up on what going on in the world, the US too often interferres with other countries for their own interests. This is stuff like proping up right wing dictators because they are 'anti-communist' (which too often then not creates resistant groups who are marxist), or formetting 'freedom fighters' who too often then not don't bring real freedom, but yet another strong man dictator.

There is a reason Paul quotes the founding fathers and gives example of how we should deal with foreign countries. Paul is definetly for having trade and commerce with other nations. You either aren't paying attention to what he says, or choosing to misinterpret what he says.

[sjw]

"Free and open trade" is not possible without this "mucking about" as you call it. You are an idiot. An extremely dense one, the black hole of idiots. Any attempt to shine a light on you reflects only darkness.

Free and open trade is not "mucking about". They refer to 2 different things. "treaties, alliances, trade agreements and commercial enterprises of this great nation" are not "mucking about" and is not want Ron Paul is speaking of.

Here's a good example of "mucking about":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naima...we_b_86035.html

Now the typical Objectivist reaction to this is gonna be wrong, but I've addressed that elsewhere in this forum.

Shayne

[Selene]

"Free and open trade" is not possible without this "mucking about" as you call it. You are an idiot. An extremely dense one, the black hole of idiots. Any attempt to shine a light on you reflects only darkness.

Free and open trade is not "mucking about". They refer to 2 different things. "treaties, alliances, trade agreements and commercial enterprises of this great nation" are not "mucking about" and is not want Ron Paul is speaking of.

Here's a good example of "mucking about":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naima...we_b_86035.html

Now the typical Objectivist reaction to this is gonna be wrong, but I've addressed that elsewhere in this forum.

Shayne

"...typical Objectivist reaction to this is going to be wrong, ...."

Sir, humor me and present me with your obviously clear understanding of "typical Objectivist", define precisely the term "typical Objectivist" and I will medidate on your obvious insight.

Adam

[Mike11]

"Free and open trade" is not possible without this "mucking about" as you call it. You are an idiot. An extremely dense one, the black hole of idiots. Any attempt to shine a light on you reflects only darkness.

Free and open trade is not "mucking about". They refer to 2 different things. "treaties, alliances, trade agreements and commercial enterprises of this great nation" are not "mucking about" and is not want Ron Paul is speaking of.

Here's a good example of "mucking about":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naima...we_b_86035.html

Now the typical Objectivist reaction to this is gonna be wrong, but I've addressed that elsewhere in this forum.

Shayne

Where?

[sjw]

"...typical Objectivist reaction to this is going to be wrong, ...."

Sir, humor me and present me with your obviously clear understanding of "typical Objectivist", define precisely the term "typical Objectivist" and I will medidate on your obvious insight.

Adam

I won't humor your rudeness but I'll toss you a bone: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635

Shayne

[sjw]

Where?

I don't know how to search for it easily...

Shayne

[emb021]

"Free and open trade" is not possible without this "mucking about" as you call it. You are an idiot. An extremely dense one, the black hole of idiots. Any attempt to shine a light on you reflects only darkness.

Free and open trade is not "mucking about". They refer to 2 different things. "treaties, alliances, trade agreements and commercial enterprises of this great nation" are not "mucking about" and is not want Ron Paul is speaking of.

Here's a good example of "mucking about":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naima...we_b_86035.html

Yup. Perfect example. One that I didn't understand myself until the last decade or so. I was in high school when the Shah was overthrown, but had no understanding of the history behind what occured there. Other examples are our fiasco in southeast Asia (which Paul gives an example of how we've changed in our dealings with Vietnam), nonsense in Latin America (which has been shown in both serious movies as well as more comedic ones) and the like.

There is the old quote of 'those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them'. Too often we were not taught what really was going on in schools (we just got the approved, sanitized story), and so too often Americans are allowing things to occur in their name without fully understand the full story and background. People's reactions to Paul pointing out our mistakes is a perfect example of this bad thinking, as shown in this bad attack ad: http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/ori...k/pedenback.jpg.

[Barbara Branden]

If the final candidates are McCain and either Hillary or Obama -- I'll write-in George Washington, the man who didn't want power.

Barbara

This glorifying of Founding Fathers while ignoring one right under our noses, Ron Paul, is inexcusible.

Shayne

Then don't excuse me.

Barbara

[Alfonso Jones]

Shayne,

Coward and hypocrite are not only strong and insulting terms, I believe they are incorrect for the people you named.

From what I see, they understand that one Objectivist principle (or more) takes precedence over another in the present context. I don't see them as unprincipled, but instead as analyzing the context differently than you do. I certainly don't see them running from people or from issues. All three have been very clear and public about their positions, and they presented their reasons and principles in unmistakable terms. I see nothing in them that leads me to doubt their sincerity. They write as they think and believe.

I feel your pain and frustration, but I do not want to get into the specific issues since I believe almost everybody oversimplifies during elections to the point of stepping outside reality. And I don't like the way people get demonized in the scramble for votes. (I do my demonizing for better reasons. )

I also understand your desire to get their attention, since they are spokesmen for Objectivism. Strong terms will do that, but the wrong strong terms can be easily dismissed. Coward and hypocrite are cognitively wrong.

I believe a strong term should highlight the difference in principles you have with them, not lack of principles altogether. For instance, "traditional conservative in Objectivist garb" or something like that. (Not that I believe that about them, but this is a good illustrative example if you are focusing only on foreign policy.) If you want to get creative, you can get quite biting with this approach and have far greater effect than using the wrong term, for as insulting as it may be.

Michael

I find it sad that the rhetorical level so often quickly reaches the level of people with whom one disagrees are deemed as cowardly, hypocritical, etc... It is at least a close relation to the "Fact and Value" practice of believing that almost any point of disagreement implies that at least one of the two disagreeing is in a state of moral failure.

It is as if the Objectivist movement has anticipated the rhetorical over-the-top nature of Internet discussion groups (at least as of the time of Fact and Value) and continues to find in such rhetoric a comfortable reassurance that "well, we must be okay, because look at how we denounce others!!!)"

This has shades of an Ayn Rand novel, but it is from We the Living - and it is behavior of the "bad guys" there. Whatever happened to benevolence?

Bill

[Selene]

Bill:

Thank you, in my satirical over the top way of formal debate, I have been surprised at the inability of some folks to be unable to have an argument, replete with satire, without personal attacks.

We had one of the finest debate teams in the nation and invited the Oxford debate team over for a roung robin debate. We wound up in the finals with them.

The final debate was a gala evening affair and was a "humorous" final debate proposition.

We drew lots. We drew the negative in the proposition that: Resolved that sex will never replace night baseball as a spectator sport. We used a negative affirmative counter plan as a strategy and it was one of the great evenings for the audience.

The dripping satire and double entendre humor was equisite.

I, frankly, am surprised that some folks have lost the art of argument in the subtext of conversation. Many folks just take an intellectual argument sooooo personally that they lose rationality. With left wing folks, it is understandable.

I was surprised that it existed here, but I was completely out of the loop on all the intricate [in my opinion, close to psychotic in fighting that I am finding out about in the Randian movement].

I think we are better than that.

Adam