Out on a limb

[sbeaulieu]

For me, hearing both candidates is much akin to reading the inside jackets of books. We won't get to read the book until one gets elected. Hopefully, either one will be good reads.

But I'm likely to pick up McCain's first...

[Brant Gaede]

Arthur Silber's basic thesis is that Iraq did not attack us therefore we aggressed against Iraq by invading it. Therefore Bush and all those that voted to support and aurthorize that are "war criminals."

Bullshit! Iraq was so bad almost any country on earth could have claimed the moral high ground in invading it.

I met Arthur in NYC almost 40 years ago when we were both in Phillip J. Smith's acting classes. I liked him. But today he has become a depressive hysteric rid over by his philosophic/moral sense of right and wrong and the world going to hell--but it ain't Objectivism. Until the world gets twisted into a shape acceptable to him there is little hope for him. There is one big thing that makes the world so much better than it used to be, basic public sanitation--cleanliness, water and sewage. We have gone from worrying about the whole country being blown up to one of our cities being blown up. The Black Plague of the Middle Ages was like a nuclear war that actually happened. That's not a modern concern. Today we have the luxury of worrying about killer objects from outer space smashing into our fragile planet. Israel has a tighter problem. In any case, there is little reason for Americans not to live productive, rational, selfish and happy lives, but Arthur found a reason. If Objectivism ever said anything to anybody it said THAT!

--Brant

Edited September 6, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[kiaer.ts]

Michael, you say that Obama is a "man of principle." Well, so were Hitler and Mao. What that Obama supports as a positive plan can you say you support? Barbara's comments are right on target.

[galtgulch]

Ron Paul was not invited to speak at the Republican Party convention, in part, because he refused to endorse John McCain.

Ron Paul was opposed to the invasion of Iraq and voted against giving Bush authority to initiate force there by the Congress. Congress had no constitutional authority to do that and did not exercise the Constitutional authority it does have to declare war.

It has become acceptable to ignore the Constitution although there are still some who consider it to be the rules of the game. Ron Paul's supporters have acquired that insight which is comparable to acquisition of the perspective which Objectivism provides. Once one realizes the true nature of Altruism it is hardly possible to go back to seeing it as benevolent.

Ron Paul is a man of principle and despite his religious beliefs he is a staunch advocate of limited government and adherence to the limits the Founders imposed on the new Federal government in Article 1 Sections 8, 9 and 10. He has said that he struggles before casting a vote in the Congress to determine whether a new bill is consistent with the explicit powers granted to the Congress or not.

He has done so for all the ten terms he spent in the Congress and is now in his eleventh term, re elected by over 70% in his district despite attempts by his own party to have him replaced.

When Ron Paul suspended his campaign after the last primary, in which his vote totals kept rising, he established the Campaign For Liberty just a couple of months ago. The purpose of it is to continue the Revolution he started beyond this election and to spread the wisdom he has acquired. In his best selling book The Revolution: A Mainfesto the bibliography includes Atlas Shrugged and works by Ludwig von Mises and others. I signed up at www.campaignforliberty.com when the counter on the home page was about 6000 and have watched it grow by the hour around the clock. Yesterday morning it stood at 97,000, last night when I got home from work it was over 98,000. At that website this morning there is a list of links to events at the Rally for the Republic at which Ron Paul and many others spoke. Here is the link to Ron Paul's speech that night, following a wonderful blues song by Jimmy Vaughn. Barry Goldwater Jr. introduces Ron Paul: Ron Paul begins to speak at 16 minutes into the video.

http://tinyurl.com/6qk6r9

I fully expect that the enthusiasm for Ron Paul among his supporters will be sustained as many run for office across the country in the years to come. Many of his supporters thirst for more of the knowledge they have learned by listening to Ron Paul. I see this as an ongoing opportunity to recommend Ayn Rand's journal, essays and novels as well as the works of others.

Whoever is elected will inadvertently facilitate the growth of the campaign for liberty movement as their policies continue to erode our freedom. Join us and help the cause. Join us now or join us later. If you value freedom as I know you all do, I believe this movement will be there for years to come and will bear fruit.

galt

Edited September 6, 2008 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; On your last sentence I hope that the Ron Paul people succeed with a better understanding of the Islamic threat.

To them and their Sharia law the best answer is "Give Me Liberty or Give me Death."

[galtgulch]

Galt; On your last sentence I hope that the Ron Paul people succeed with a better understanding of the Islamic threat.

To them and their Sharia law the best answer is "Give Me Liberty or Give me Death."

It is hard to imagine how things would have evolved if the United States had not established the Shah in Iran in 1953 as well as all those 826 military bases in 130 countries over the years.

I know that Christianity engaged in Holy Inquisitions throughout Europe in which non believers in the One True Religion were characterized as heretics, tortured and killed in public before the Enlightenment and that Islam has yet to go through its own Renaissance.

I wonder what your solution is besides killing every cleric who preaches that infidels should be slaughtered?

Should be interesting to watch to see how the European countries, which have larger and growing populations of Islamic people, deal with their own loss of freedoms.

In the meantime I am more concerned with this countries domestic and foreign policies. We are on the verge of bankruptcy and economic collapse from all the spending on unconstitutional programs and that promises to just get worse under Obama while McCain splurges on new wars overseas to squander our earnings.

I will go on supporting the spread of Objectivism and the www.campaignforliberty.com!

galt

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; Why do you Ron Paul supporters like the Hard Left always blame America first. Many of the things you say are good and correct but you all seem to have read too much Chomsky.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[kiaer.ts]

I know that Christianity engaged in Holy Inquisitions throughout Europe in which non believers in the One True Religion were characterized as heretics, tortured and killed in public before the Enlightenment and that Islam has yet to go through its own Renaissance.

This is such a hoary bromide (if I can mix those metaphors). The French Revolution overthrew your priests, and guillotined 16-40,000 in under 2 years, while the Spanish Inquisition killed 2,000 in well over two centuries. Not that I am defending the Inquisition - I just wish you conspiracy theorists would get your priorities straight, and your references to horrors a bit more recent and relevant.

As for the 130 countries with military bases, do you have supporting documentation?

[Chris Grieb]

Ted; The Hate America Libertarians have no interest in facts or reality. Reading some of this SCUM explains why Ayn Rand despised them.

Ted; Another example is the Islamics always being up the Crusades even through the Crusades occurred because of the failure of the Muslims to live up to the promises they had made about Christian piligrims

Edited September 6, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[galtgulch]

Galt; Why do you Ron Paul supporters like the Hard Left always blame America first. Many of the things you say are good and correct but you all seem to have read too much Chomsky.

It would be a mistake to lump all Ron Paul supporters together any more than it is rational to lump all of any persuasion together. Remember we are individualists first!

I have never read Chomsky.

Regarding blaming America first, are you suggesting that our foreign policies are justifiable? How about our domestic policies? Who is to blame?

Rand had Peikoff rewrite The Ominous Parallels over and over. In it ideas which prevailed in Gemany before Hitler rose to power are traced back through numerous intellectuals of the Nineteenth Century including Kant, Hegel, Freud, Jung, and many others, all the way back to Plato! So evidently Rand considers that ideas move the world.

Is the same thing happening here? The prevailing ideology at the time of the founding of America was not the ideology of the Founders! It was some variant of Christianity, meaning mysticism, Altruism and collectivism, although there was an individualistic streak and an anti monarchical sentiment at first. Altruism reared its ugly head in the first Congress when bills were proposed to grant funds to widows of the revolutionaries! Veteran's benefits?

Ideas are passed on from one generation to the next by parents, teachers, clergy, intellectuals, professors, artists, politicians, writers and by cultural osmosis.

Those who fought to establish the public schools sought to do so to free children from the parochialism of the church schools and the rational still appeals.

Marxist professors were finally expelled when the wall came down in Europe while our Marxist professors are tenured and continue to spread their foul tenets.

The absence of any substantial discussion of ideas in the recent campaigns demonstrates the shallowness of debate in America in the political domain. One must search the internet to find substantial discussion or explore what books remain in libraries or private collections as book stores go out of business.

If ideas move the world is accepted as a virtual axiom, and the ideas which will assure our freedom do exist in a handful of books, and in the minds of a minority of the citizenry, the way is clear.

Do you think it is impossible to change the mind of any religious person or of any leftist or neocon? There are other categories such as simply the unenlightened. In my personal experience I have witnessed examples of each who were open to reason. You know the ideas and the books do exist! All that remains is the will to act and the ingenuity to create.

galt

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, you say that Obama is a "man of principle." Well, so were Hitler and Mao. What that Obama supports as a positive plan can you say you support? Barbara's comments are right on target.

Ted,

This is a bit loaded so let's unpack it.

1. Obama is no Hitler or Mao. Not even in the ball park. Neither is he dictator material. He is an American and identifiably so. He might like his power, but that's like a person who like a glass of wine with dinner compared to a flaming alcoholic. I just don't see Obama liking power enough to work towards a secret police governed nation.

btw - I have lived through some of the worst choices for President we have ever had (try Nixon and McGovern for a barrel of laughs, or even recently on a lesser rung of hell, Bush and Gore). Obama does not show the signs of serious commitment to entrenched old-boy clubs, left or right.

2. Obama's stated plans have nothing to do with the principles I see him practice, except superficially. Like I said, I see him committed to decency and acting on that, whereas I do not see him committed to any specific political plan. There are some other principles equivalent to decency in his character. For instance, he listens and weighs advice and tries to be reasonable. That's more of a virtue than people might think. Actually, he reminds me of Lula so much it isn't funny. I believe if he were elected, he would do like Lula did and end up pissing off the leftist people who supported him while slowly moving toward the capitalist ideal.

3. Obama's stated plans are difficult to pin down because you don't know when he will change them. That's just one of the reasons I cannot agree with the doom-sayers. I don't see Obama taking any plan and seeing it to the end on principle alone, especially if it starts showing signs of drastic failure. On the contrary, I see him swiftly abandoning a plan if a decency level is breached (since decency is his real principle). So I don't see the doom-saying as anything other than campaign rhetoric.

4. Of Obama's stated plans (at this moment), there is a lot not to like and I, like you, do not like that lot. For me, the biggest thing I don't like is the illusion that the government can increase involvement in society while decreasing taxes and keeping freedoms where they are. All the specifics are variations on that.

I don't see Obama adhering to this illusion for long, though, should he get elected. Reality would bash him over the head hard. And this point is where I see he would start to migrate to the pro-capitalist less-government view. It would not be one day to the next, but I see it going firmly in that direction.

5. Of his supporters, I am 100% in agreement with Barbara about some of them (there are some really evil people out there), but not all of them. Not even the majority.

My own view is that the majority of people are sick and tired of the old-boy politics of Bush and Clinton, where it's OK to lie to the public for "the good of the nation" while protecting small elite interests home and abroad with the USA military and government machinery. The Obama-supporters I have discussed this with are not really pro-Obama underneath. They are anti-cronyism. They are sick and fed up with it, to be clear. They are against elite insiders parading about trashing the world and filling their pockets and those of the other members of the insider club with government-protected favoritism while proclaiming a moral sanction because they were elected. People are sick and tired of being lied to time after time.

Here's just one issue: the Iraq war. How long do insiders think that people will not notice that Saddam Hussein was a business partner of the USA one day, Public Enemy No. 1 the next, and stayed in power after losing a war, thumbing his nose at the world while Iraq oil found its ways to the insiders through a long broker chain and front companies? In other words, Saddam continued to be a business partner of the US even when defeated in war. It was just hidden and people are now tired of pretending otherwise.

I personally have been saying ever since I started online posting that we should stop doing business with dictators. That's one of the roots of the evil we now face in the world. We do business with evil. I have been severely bashed for this stance, too.

Lo an behold, what do you now see out of the mouths of both candidates in this respect?

We need to stop doing business with, and enriching, people who hate us.

Whew!

It was hard to understand that people who hate us will attack us if we arm them to the teeth, wasn't it? It took years.

Sure, there's a lot of differences about how to do stop this mountain of insider government-protected cartel profits and power, but I do not doubt the sincerity of either candidate on this point like I do George Bush (or Gore or Kerry, should they have been elected). Neither does the American public at large. Just look at the results of the primaries. I even believe Obama beat Hillary because of this more than anything else. She's just too committed to the old-boy clubs. Even Ron Paul got the most decent shot for a libertarian outsider in history because of this.

The American people are not stupid and through their support of Obama (and McCain), they are now saying, "Enough!"

Like I have said above, I am really glad to be alive to see this. I sincerely believe a reversal away from the drift toward total statism has already started.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Michael, you say that Obama is a "man of principle." Well, so were Hitler and Mao. What that Obama supports as a positive plan can you say you support? Barbara's comments are right on target.

Ted,

This is a bit loaded so let's unpack it.

1. Obama is no Hitler or Mao. Not even in the ball park. Neither is he dictator material. He is an American and identifiably so. He might like his power, but that's like a person who like a glass of wine with dinner compared to a flaming alcoholic. I just don't see Obama liking power enough to work towards a secret police governed nation.

btw - I have lived through some of the worst choices for President we have ever had (try Nixon and McGovern for a barrel of laughs, or even recently on a lesser rung of hell, Bush and Gore). Obama does not show the signs of serious commitment to entrenched old-boy clubs, left or right.

How can you even compare either of those choices to Carter-Ford -- where the voters chose CARTER!! Or Johnson-Goldwater -- where the voters chose JOHNSON!!

Do you seriously claim that America has been worse off under either Nixon or Bush, than under Carter or Johnson? Yet, that was a situation where we had a ~good~ alternative, and Ford and Goldwater got beat.

As for Obama, I don't see him heading in a police-state fascist direction. I see him fast-marching us in the direction of the Socialist Democratic states in Europe in Atlas Shrugged, sagging and sinking into initiative- and enterprise-killing taxes and regulations and massive wealth-transfers.

And that is "dictatorial" enough for me to want NOTHING of Mr. Obama.

2. Obama's stated plans have nothing to do with the principles I see him practice, except superficially. Like I said, I see him committed to decency and acting on that, whereas I do not see him committed to any specific political plan. There are some other principles equivalent to decency in his character. For instance, he listens and weighs advice and tries to be reasonable. That's more of a virtue than people might think. Actually, he reminds me of Lula so much it isn't funny. I believe if he were elected, he would do like Lula did and end up pissing off the leftist people who supported him while slowly moving toward the capitalist ideal.

"Committed to decency"? Perhaps so. But he is over-ridingly committed to "change," and "slowly moving toward the capitalist ideal" is a bit much to expect, even for a person as "reasonable" as Obama. If that turned out to be the "change" he embraced, some leftist fanatic would find a way to assassinate him and make it look like the Klan did it.

3. Obama's stated plans are difficult to pin down because you don't know when he will change them. That's just one of the reasons I cannot agree with the doom-sayers. I don't see Obama taking any plan and seeing it to the end on principle alone, especially if it starts showing signs of drastic failure. On the contrary, I see him swiftly abandoning a plan if a decency level is breached (since decency is his real principle). So I don't see the doom-saying as anything other than campaign rhetoric.

Johnson and Carter seriously crippled the economy, as the "doom-sayers" said their policies would. Were they (especially Carter) less "decent" than Obama? Were they more power-hungry and stubborn than your crystal ball/intuition/instinct tells you Obama is?

4. Of Obama's stated plans (at this moment), there is a lot not to like and I, like you, do not like that lot. For me, the biggest thing I don't like is the illusion that the government can increase involvement in society while decreasing taxes and keeping freedoms where they are. All the specifics are variations on that.

I don't see Obama adhering to this illusion for long, though, should he get elected. Reality would bash him over the head hard. And this point is where I see he would start to migrate to the pro-capitalist less-government view. It would not be one day to the next, but I see it going firmly in that direction.

The ~only~ thing that I expect would make Obama "start to migrate to the pro-capitalist less-government view" would be a big increase in the number -- i.e., a new majority -- of (even semi-)principled freedom folks in the Congress after mid-term elections in 2010, similar to what happened to Clinton in 1994. But perhaps you think that Obama is more "decent" than Clinton?

5. Of his supporters, I am 100% in agreement with Barbara about some of them (there are some really evil people out there), but not all of them. Not even the majority.

My own view is that the majority of people are sick and tired of the old-boy politics of Bush and Clinton, where it's OK to lie to the public for "the good of the nation" while protecting small elite interests home and abroad with the USA military and government machinery. The Obama-supporters I have discussed this with are not really pro-Obama underneath. They are anti-cronyism. They are sick and fed up with it, to be clear. They are against elite insiders parading about trashing the world and filling their pockets and those of the other members of the insider club with government-protected favoritism while proclaiming a moral sanction because they were elected. People are sick and tired of being lied to time after time.

And that is why the majority of voters are going to vote for McCain/Palin, because they are going to see through Obama's facade of idealism and "hope" and "change" and realize that he is just another socialist politician, and that McCain/Palin have staked out the high ground of reform and bipartisan cooperation. (McCain/Palin will probably push us toward socialism, too, but more slowly.)

Like I have said above, I am really glad to be alive to see this. I sincerely believe a reversal away from the drift toward total statism has already started.

Only because of McCain/Palin, and only if they stop Obama.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

I am no fan of either Johnson or Carter and just because I did not mention them, that does not mean I made an opinion about them. Nevertheless, neither "crippled" the USA economy. The Great Depression of the 1930's was a crippling, not the problems under these gentlemen.

Our mainstream media makes many things out to be worse than they actually are. Fear sells and that's why they do it.

But let's look at the obvious. When was the last time you went hungry because you had no food? According to the fear-mongers in the right-wing press, it should have been under Clinton, and under the left-wing press, it should have been under Bush. Or in your case, was it during Johnson or Carter's administration?

Actually, when was the last time anyone you know went hungry here in the USA because they had no food?

Life is good here in the USA.

(I am not counting natural disasters like the hurricane in New Orleans. I am discussing American society, not non-human surges in nature.)

I stand by my analysis of Obama because I have seen something similar enough with my own eyes to arrive at that conclusion. He is a good man. That should not be taken to mean I endorse the planks in his present platform. I don't.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

First, I hereby name Roger as my intellectual heir, and give him a blank check to speak fo me on all issues.

Second, what I hear Michael saying is that if one takes the alternative of Democrta versus Republican as granted, then Obama as the Democrat is an outsider - while Hillary would presumably been a continuation of the cronyist program. I can understand this. I do think it is largely projection. Look at how people in Europe reacted to Obama - that was projection on a scale we haven't seen since Hitler. Obama is not even in the same ballfield. It's obscene to suggest it. But consider the context within which politicians serve. Deutschland was ready for Hitler, and he did what he has able to get away with under those circumstances. Under more restrained circumstances he might have been a crackpot author or a "moderate" socialist. Obama is no Hitler, not even close. But he does have this in common - that he is a power seeker. The power he seeks will be limited by the land he lives in. The land gives me comfort. Obama's actions, policies, history, lack of achievement, and partisan power seeking do not comfort me. The fact that he cannot become a banana republic blowhard because this is not a banana republic does not comfort me.

Strangely enough, were Hillary the candidate, I would still be staunchly opposed to her. But then I might also make some of the same arguments Michael is making about Obama. I would think she would be too pragmatic to be a 10.0 on the Richter scale. But 7.0's do more than enough damage. McCain strikes me as a tropical storm. He'll ceretainly do plenty of damage. But he may at least relieve some drought and wash some garbage out to sea.

[galtgulch]

Michael, you say that Obama is a "man of principle." Well, so were Hitler and Mao. What that Obama supports as a positive plan can you say you support? Barbara's comments are right on target.

Ted,

This is a bit loaded so let's unpack it.

1. Obama is no Hitler or Mao. Not even in the ball park. Neither is he dictator material. He is an American and identifiably so. He might like his power, but that's like a person who like a glass of wine with dinner compared to a flaming alcoholic. I just don't see Obama liking power enough to work towards a secret police governed nation.

btw - I have lived through some of the worst choices for President we have ever had (try Nixon and McGovern for a barrel of laughs, or even recently on a lesser rung of hell, Bush and Gore). Obama does not show the signs of serious commitment to entrenched old-boy clubs, left or right.

2. Obama's stated plans have nothing to do with the principles I see him practice, except superficially. Like I said, I see him committed to decency and acting on that, whereas I do not see him committed to any specific political plan. There are some other principles equivalent to decency in his character. For instance, he listens and weighs advice and tries to be reasonable. That's more of a virtue than people might think. Actually, he reminds me of Lula so much it isn't funny. I believe if he were elected, he would do like Lula did and end up pissing off the leftist people who supported him while slowly moving toward the capitalist ideal.

3. Obama's stated plans are difficult to pin down because you don't know when he will change them. That's just one of the reasons I cannot agree with the doom-sayers. I don't see Obama taking any plan and seeing it to the end on principle alone, especially if it starts showing signs of drastic failure. On the contrary, I see him swiftly abandoning a plan if a decency level is breached (since decency is his real principle). So I don't see the doom-saying as anything other than campaign rhetoric.

4. Of Obama's stated plans (at this moment), there is a lot not to like and I, like you, do not like that lot. For me, the biggest thing I don't like is the illusion that the government can increase involvement in society while decreasing taxes and keeping freedoms where they are. All the specifics are variations on that.

I don't see Obama adhering to this illusion for long, though, should he get elected. Reality would bash him over the head hard. And this point is where I see he would start to migrate to the pro-capitalist less-government view. It would not be one day to the next, but I see it going firmly in that direction.

5. Of his supporters, I am 100% in agreement with Barbara about some of them (there are some really evil people out there), but not all of them. Not even the majority.

My own view is that the majority of people are sick and tired of the old-boy politics of Bush and Clinton, where it's OK to lie to the public for "the good of the nation" while protecting small elite interests home and abroad with the USA military and government machinery. The Obama-supporters I have discussed this with are not really pro-Obama underneath. They are anti-cronyism. They are sick and fed up with it, to be clear. They are against elite insiders parading about trashing the world and filling their pockets and those of the other members of the insider club with government-protected favoritism while proclaiming a moral sanction because they were elected. People are sick and tired of being lied to time after time.

Here's just one issue: the Iraq war. How long do insiders think that people will not notice that Saddam Hussein was a business partner of the USA one day, Public Enemy No. 1 the next, and stayed in power after losing a war, thumbing his nose at the world while Iraq oil found its ways to the insiders through a long broker chain and front companies? In other words, Saddam continued to be a business partner of the US even when defeated in war. It was just hidden and people are now tired of pretending otherwise.

I personally have been saying ever since I started online posting that we should stop doing business with dictators. That's one of the roots of the evil we now face in the world. We do business with evil. I have been severely bashed for this stance, too.

Lo an behold, what do you now see out of the mouths of both candidates in this respect?

We need to stop doing business with, and enriching, people who hate us.

Whew!

It was hard to understand that people who hate us will attack us if we arm them to the teeth, wasn't it? It took years.

Sure, there's a lot of differences about how to do stop this mountain of insider government-protected cartel profits and power, but I do not doubt the sincerity of either candidate on this point like I do George Bush (or Gore or Kerry, should they have been elected). Neither does the American public at large. Just look at the results of the primaries. I even believe Obama beat Hillary because of this more than anything else. She's just too committed to the old-boy clubs. Even Ron Paul got the most decent shot for a libertarian outsider in history because of this.

The American people are not stupid and through their support of Obama (and McCain), they are now saying, "Enough!"

Like I have said above, I am really glad to be alive to see this. I sincerely believe a reversal away from the drift toward total statism has already started.

Michael

Michael,

Not long ago I was accused of being out of touch with reality, of being psychotic, or in danger of losing my mind. I am happy to hand the mantle to you.

So despite the fact that Obama has said explicitly that "you are your brothers keeper but you haven't given enough yet!" you think he is a decent Altruist who will encounter reality if elected and become limited government in short order. What utter naivete! Of course he and his wife expect there to be howls when he turns up the heat and the taxes. He thinks we are selfish and that there are many brothers around the entire world who need our help. He is determined to help them at our expense through the United Nations with approval of the recipient nations representatives in the UN of course.

Once he gets the taste of such power he will do all he can to exploit the system for the benefit of others. He will start small and gradually increase the squeeze until it hurts.

How do I know? How do you know he will not? What makes me so sure he will? What makes you so sure he will not?

Reality will show if he gets elected as well he might because we are immersed in a sea of altruists, mystics and statists.

Its the philosophy stupid!

Think again!

galt

[kiaer.ts]

I repeat myself, with bold added:

I know that Christianity engaged in Holy Inquisitions throughout Europe in which non believers in the One True Religion were characterized as heretics, tortured and killed in public before the Enlightenment and that Islam has yet to go through its own Renaissance.

This is such a hoary bromide (if I can mix those metaphors). The French Revolution overthrew your priests, and guillotined 16-40,000 in under 2 years, while the Spanish Inquisition killed 2,000 in well over two centuries. Not that I am defending the Inquisition - I just wish you conspiracy theorists would get your priorities straight, and your references to horrors a bit more recent and relevant. (Note how I document my claims.)

As for the 130 countries with military bases, do you have supporting documentation?

[Barbara Branden]

Michael:

"...Obama's stated plans have nothing to do with the principles I see him practice, except superficially. Like I said, I see him committed to decency and acting on that, whereas I do not see him committed to any specific political plan....

"...Of Obama's stated plans (at this moment), there is a lot not to like and I, like you, do not like that lot. For me, the biggest thing I don't like is the illusion that the government can increase involvement in society while decreasing taxes and keeping freedoms where they are. All the specifics are variations on that.

"I don't see Obama adhering to this illusion for long, though, should he get elected. Reality would bash him over the head hard. And this point is where I see he would start to migrate to the pro-capitalist less-government view. It would not be one day to the next, but I see it going firmly in that direction."

I don't understand how one can speak of a "committment to decency" about a man who for twenty years listened to sermons by his "old uncle" and mentor, Reverend Wright, (the passionate hater of America and the defender of Farrakhan; you remember Farrakhan, he's the anti-Semite who announced "White folks, you owe us the whole country!"), who was married by the creature, had his childen baptized by him, and who brought his children on Sundays to listen to his denunciations of America and white Americans. I don't know how one can speak of decency about a man who befriended an unrepentant, bomb-throwing terrorist whose only regret is that he did not set off more bombs to kill Americans; it was this man under whose auspices and in whose home our "decent" man began his political career, it was on this man's board of directors -- the board of an organization headed by the terrorist -- that this "decent" man sat, this man who now speaks of his friend as a "respectable citizen."

You say Obama has no specific political plan. That would certainly be news to him -- and to the George Soros' of the Democratic Party who are spending millions upon millions of dollars to have him crowned as Messiah-President.

You say that if and when he's elected, reality will bash him over the head and he'll embrace a less-government policy. Reality hit his spiritual father, Jimmy Carter, over the head with a vengeance when America fell into a disastrous recession, with interest rates and inflation soaring toard 20% -- but Carter changed not a single one of his political policies; instead, he demanded still more of the same policies. Idealogues do no change their ideology simply beause reality refuses to oblige. True belief is impervious to reason and reality, as surely all of history has proved. If the disastrous history of every attempt to implement socialist ideas were enough to change the minds of its proponents, we would probably be living in Utopia. Have you heard the phrase "invinciible ignorance?"

Barbara

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

I am no fan of either Johnson or Carter and just because I did not mention them, that does not mean I made an opinion about them. Nevertheless, neither "crippled" the USA economy. The Great Depression of the 1930's was a crippling, not the problems under these gentlemen.

Let's define our terms, shall we? Even if they're metaphorical, it will make for a clearer discussion.

I like Nathaniel Branden's metaphor for the Great Depression. It was not a "crippling" of the country. It was a freaking HEART ATTACK, ok?

Now, "crippling" the economy suggests that you ~injure~ it, but that it can limp along and get from Point A to Point B, without ~serious~ problems.

Are you seriously suggestion that things were merely limping along during the Great Depression? I wouldn't! That description better fits the stagflation of the Johnson and Carter years, especially the latter. I was here, and I lived through it. It was not the heart-attack, one step away from a coma, of the Great Depression (as my Mom reminds me), but it was nasty and could have gotten nastier if we had zigged rather than zagged in 1980.

Though Johnson was never regarded as an angel, Carter -- for reasons known only to God -- has practically been elevated to sainthood, and he came close to destroying the economy, and would have with another term. Thank the aforementioned deity that the Rand-reviled Reagan came along and cleaned Carter's clock and relegated him to building Habitats for Humanity -- and (grrr!) receiving a Nobel prize. (What a farce.)

Our mainstream media makes many things out to be worse than they actually are. Fear sells and that's why they do it.

But let's look at the obvious. When was the last time you went hungry because you had no food? According to the fear-mongers in the right-wing press, it should have been under Clinton, and under the left-wing press, it should have been under Bush. Or in your case, was it during Johnson or Carter's administration?

Actually, when was the last time anyone you know went hungry here in the USA because they had no food?

Well, how about the Great Depression? (My folks, among others, though they didn't starve to death, thank goodness!)

The mainstream media is quite selective about what it points out to be bad, and how much it exaggerates the severity of the problem. Even worse, due to the overwhelming liberal bias (approximately 80-90%) of the MSM (or "drive-by media" as Rush Limbaugh calls it), the ~explanations~ for the bad things usually get framed in terms of the evil, selfish, greedy, individualistic, capitalistic market sector, NOT in terms of failed, counterproductive government intervention.

It's not just "fear" per se that is the problem, but fear directed at the freedom and liberty of productive, rational individuals who want to be left alone to produce and enjoy the fruits of their labors. These people must be intimidated and harnessed to dutifully produce for the "greater good" -- and failing that, crushed and destroyed. Do you doubt that this is the course Obama would take, if given even the currently existing level of executive power over the American economy?

I stand by my analysis of Obama because I have seen something similar enough with my own eyes to arrive at that conclusion. He is a good man.

Yeah, your trust in Obama's decency sounds just a little too similar to that fishy spiritual relationship between George Bush and Putin for my comfort. Bush thought he saw into Putin's soul and saw someone decent. But Putin was just a thug-statist, as we all have seen all too clearly. Do you want to gamble the future of our freedom on your long-distance divination into Obama's soul? Not me, pal!

REB

[kiaer.ts]

Yeah, your trust in Obama's decency sounds just a little too similar to that fishy spiritual relationship between George Bush and Putin for my comfort.

Now that's an ominous parallel.

[Roger Bissell]

Michael:

"...Obama's stated plans have nothing to do with the principles I see him practice, except superficially. Like I said, I see him committed to decency and acting on that, whereas I do not see him committed to any specific political plan....

"...Of Obama's stated plans (at this moment), there is a lot not to like and I, like you, do not like that lot. For me, the biggest thing I don't like is the illusion that the government can increase involvement in society while decreasing taxes and keeping freedoms where they are. All the specifics are variations on that.

"I don't see Obama adhering to this illusion for long, though, should he get elected. Reality would bash him over the head hard. And this point is where I see he would start to migrate to the pro-capitalist less-government view. It would not be one day to the next, but I see it going firmly in that direction."

I don't understand how one can speak of a "committment to decency" about a man who for twenty years listened to sermons by his "old uncle" and mentor, Reverend Wright, (the passionate hater of America and the defender of Farrakhan; you remember Farrakhan, he's the anti-Semite who announced "White folks, you owe us the whole country!"), who was married by the creature, had his childen baptized by him, and who brought his children on Sundays to listen to his denunciations of America and white Americans. I don't know how one can speak of decency about a man who befriended an unrepentant, bomb-throwing terrorist whose only regret is that he did not set off more bombs to kill Americans; it was this man under whose auspices and in whose home our "decent" man began his political career, it was on this man's board of directors -- the board of an organization headed by the terrorist -- that this "decent" man sat, this man who now speaks of his friend as a "respectable citizen."

You say Obama has no specific political plan. That would certainly be news to him -- and to the George Soros' of the Democratic Party who are spending millions upon millions of dollars to have him crowned as Messiah-President.

You say that if and when he's elected, reality will bash him over the head and he'll embrace a less-government policy. Reality hit his spiritual father, Jimmy Carter, over the head with a vengeance when America fell into a disastrous recession, with interest rates and inflation soaring toard 20% -- but Carter changed not a single one of his political policies; instead, he demanded still more of the same policies. Idealogues do no change their ideology simply beause reality refuses to oblige. True belief is impervious to reason and reality, as surely all of history has proved. If the disastrous history of every attempt to implement socialist ideas were enough to change the minds of its proponents, we would probably be living in Utopia. Have you heard the phrase "invinciible ignorance?"

Barbara

Barbara, that is spot on! Obama ~is~ Carter's spiritual son, and turning him loose over the economy -- especially with a Democratically controlled Congress (as it almost surely will continue to be, perhaps even more so) -- would be another disaster.

And "decent"? That is a joke, and thank you for reminding us of Obama's ~wallowing~ in his pastor's vitriolic hatred of Whites and of America, and ~subjecting his young daughters~ to such ranting indoctrination -- and of his very disturbing association with Ayers, the socialist bomber who should have been put in Federal prison for life without parole, instead of leading "community organizing" with Obama.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

First, I hereby name Roger as my intellectual heir, and give him a blank check to speak fo me on all issues.

Second, what I hear Michael saying is that if one takes the alternative of Democrta versus Republican as granted, then Obama as the Democrat is an outsider - while Hillary would presumably been a continuation of the cronyist program. I can understand this. I do think it is largely projection. Look at how people in Europe reacted to Obama - that was projection on a scale we haven't seen since Hitler. Obama is not even in the same ballfield. It's obscene to suggest it. But consider the context within which politicians serve. Deutschland was ready for Hitler, and he did what he has able to get away with under those circumstances. Under more restrained circumstances he might have been a crackpot author or a "moderate" socialist. Obama is no Hitler, not even close. But he does have this in common - that he is a power seeker. The power he seeks will be limited by the land he lives in. The land gives me comfort. Obama's actions, policies, history, lack of achievement, and partisan power seeking do not comfort me. The fact that he cannot become a banana republic blowhard because this is not a banana republic does not comfort me.

Strangely enough, were Hillary the candidate, I would still be staunchly opposed to her. But then I might also make some of the same arguments Michael is making about Obama. I would think she would be too pragmatic to be a 10.0 on the Richter scale. But 7.0's do more than enough damage. McCain strikes me as a tropical storm. He'll ceretainly do plenty of damage. But he may at least relieve some drought and wash some garbage out to sea.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ted. But I hope this doesn't mean you're expecting to croak any time soon!

Perhaps "intellectual tag-teammate" would be more apropos, were I not so busy these days. I'm afraid that I often have to leave my friends in the lurch and bow out of discussions that might benefit from my (admittedly bloviating at times) comments.

But I'm enjoying the current discussion. It's amazing how politics gets people cranked up. Almost as much as, oh, induction or modern art.

REB

[Martin Radwin]

Arthur Silber's basic thesis is that Iraq did not attack us therefore we aggressed against Iraq by invading it. Therefore Bush and all those that voted to support and aurthorize that are "war criminals."

Bullshit! Iraq was so bad almost any country on earth could have claimed the moral high ground in invading it.

Exactly how bad does a country have to be before it is okay for the government of another country that has not been attacked by it to go to war against it? What are your criteria for labeling the country as sufficiently bad that it is fair game for any other country that feels so inclined to attack it and to be justified in doing so?

How many innocent people is it okay for the attacking government to kill, wound, displace, or enslave as a result of the attack? How much suffering may justifiably be inflicted upon innocent people by the attacking government? Can the infliction of such suffering and death on the innocent in a non-defensive attack ever constitute "the moral high ground", rather than an unforgivable war crime?

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Arthur Silber's basic thesis is that Iraq did not attack us therefore we aggressed against Iraq by invading it. Therefore Bush and all those that voted to support and aurthorize that are "war criminals."

Bullshit! Iraq was so bad almost any country on earth could have claimed the moral high ground in invading it.

Exactly how bad does a country have to be before it is okay for the government of another country that has not been attacked by it to go to war against it? What are your criteria for labeling the country as sufficiently bad that it is fair game for any other country that feels so inclined to attack it and to be justified in doing so?

How many innocent people is it okay for the attacking government to kill, wound, displace, or enslave as a result of the attack? How much suffering may justifiably be inflicted upon innocent people by the attacking government? Can the infliction of such suffering and death on the innocent in a non-defensive attack ever constitute "the moral high ground", rather than an unforgivable war crime?

Martin

Of course! Let Hitler murder Jews and enslave Europe! It's more important to protect the "innocent" Germans! Why didn't you say: "Saddam, kill yourself! Save your country from the barbaric American invaders!"

--(Gaede is German) Brant

Edited September 7, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I am confused about your appraisal of Obama. Are you saying he does have an ideology, or that he does not have an ideology? That he is a man of priniple (the wrong ones) or that he does not have principles (he flip-flops all the time)?

Also, do you think Obama is committed to sponsoring domestic terrorism? From your remarks, you sound like you do.

I don't care for his policies, but I just don't see it. My vision of him is informed by what I have seen in similar contexts and, like I said, he is no Hitler.

Speaking of Soros, I saw a TV interview with him. His political mission was defined by Popper. He is actively funding Popper's open society throughout the world as he understands it. It would be nice if Objectivists had a gazillionaire activist like that.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's not just "fear" per se that is the problem, but fear directed at the freedom and liberty of productive, rational individuals who want to be left alone to produce and enjoy the fruits of their labors.

Roger,

Really? That's not the vibes I get from the right's rants and respective MSM coverage. I see fear all around, and false fear being sold on all sides through bombastic rhetoric of how the world will end if the other side wins.

You and others mention how terrible the USA has been under different Presidents, but when I look around and see all this wealth around me, I am not convinced.

I would love to see gods or demons in the present political scene so I could get riled, but I don't. I just see basically good people (the part I like) who are politicians (the part I don't like). One leans one way and the other leans another, but the leaning is not all that steep.

I am in favor of combating certain issues (and should Obama win, I will combat them, just like I will combat certain things if MaCain wins), but I am not in favor of rhetorical omissions and exaggerations that turn an American candidate for President into a Hitler or worse. In the end, this convinces no one but the choir.

I predict that America will continue to be a great country and a marvelous place to live irrespective of who wins. And I know I am right.

Michael