Right. Ayn Rand's personal politics don't set well with me. Her philosophy on self reliance is wonderful, and her belief in a free market is something to be applauded, but aside from those core beliefs of Objectivism there seems to be something more nefarious. It's hard for me to put my finger on, to be honest. I'll stick with Libertarianism.

In reply to this comment by thinker247:
The article "End States Who Sponsor Terrorism" by Leonard Peikoff, was ridiculous. I stopped reading after he said that we should use any weapon technology, including nuclear, to eradicate the states that sponsor terrorists. What an insane notion. Dick Cheney probably read that and creamed his pants.

Let's go bomb Iran. Nothing like collateral damage to push an agenda of selfish interest.

Oh, and Rand's three axioms of Objectivism are funny. Put together, you could write them as: "Consciousness is being conscious of something that is what it is, and its existence exists." I understand that philosophy often describes something in its simplest form, but...wow.

The article "End States Who Sponsor Terrorism" by Leonard Peikoff, was ridiculous. I stopped reading after he said that we should use any weapon technology, including nuclear, to eradicate the states that sponsor terrorists. What an insane notion. Dick Cheney probably read that and creamed his pants.

Let's go bomb Iran. Nothing like collateral damage to push an agenda of selfish interest.

Oh, and Rand's three axioms of Objectivism are funny. Put together, you could write them as: "Consciousness is being conscious of something that is what it is, and its existence exists." I understand that philosophy often describes something in its simplest form, but...wow.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The thinking behind Objectivism sounds good on paper, but I've heard Rand believed in wars abroad, which I disagree with.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war

That of course isn't her writing, but that shows a bit of the thinking behind Objectivist.

In reply to this comment by thinker247:
Why?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Ayn Rand bothers me.

Yeah, because McCain hangs out with saints and angels, and he's not the type of unhinged lunatic that would do something crazy like bomb Iran. Great logic.

>> ^bobknight33:
You are the company you keep.

I never said she wasn't human. Just a stupid one. And I'm not punishing her. Just mentioning her flaws that should require her to stay away from a voting booth.

And I'm not hiding behind my avatar. I talk like this in real life every day, to peoples' faces. I once mocked a co-worker for his stupidity. Should I feel bad for telling someone to their face, something nobody else would?

"Cycle of violence?" Are we being a bit menstrual here? I never said we should crowd around her and beat her up. Just don't let her in a voting booth. Do one of those delightful purges of the voter rolls.

Tell me how you're different than this woman.

I use my intelligence to decipher the truth. If I can't be sure about something, I don't air my concern over a national medium. I also don't automatically give my name to people just because they ask for it.

I am not fearful of, nor lashing out at, this woman or others like her. I despise their right to vote, but that's it. She could worry about the A-rabs forever for all I care, but I don't like that she can take that ignorance into a booth designed for intelligent, informed people.

Bringing up your aunt's sickness doesn't pull on my heart strings, nor does it make her use of "nigger" suddenly seem like something not worth debating with her about. And no, I wouldn't care if somebody called my grandmother and berated her, because 1) she's dead and 2) if she was alive she would be smart enough to keep her mouth shut when confused about an issue. My grandmother spent every day of her adult life using her brain, reading books and newspapers and working on crossword puzzles to keep her mind sharp. She was extremely intelligent, without going to college, because she knew that anybody can focus their mind at any time. So nobody would even need a reason to berate her.

[...] why are you bringing McCain into this? He isn't stupid or confused. He's on the stage running for president.

Really? You think BOMB BOMB IRAN isn't stupid? Mr. "My Fellow Prisoners" isn't confused? If being on stage, running for president, makes you smart...what happened to George W. Bush?

>> ^bareboards:
^
You just can't see her as a human being, can you? You have to punish her for being stupid. What is that about?
And yeah, I think you are hiding behind the avatars. Why is my logic faulty? Just because you say so? My own bullshit test is to ask -- would you say the same thing to someone's face?
And talk about faulty logic -- why are you bringing McCain into this? He isn't stupid or confused. He's on the stage running for president. He doesn't get a pass from me.
Look, I don't like what she said, either. I am scared by the number of people who believe the lies told about Obama.
But if you and folks like you continue this cycle of violence against each other when we don't agree, we are heading for a dysfunctional and increasingly hateful society.
It is in your power and only in your power to treat the next person well.
Tell me how you are different from this woman? I see you both as fearful - lashing out - incurious - unforgiving - intolerant of "the other."
Would you want your grandmother to be inundated with hate mail and hate phone calls?
I was talking to my aunt yesterday on the phone. She is in charge of elections and registrations for a small rural county in a deeply red Southern state. She told me that they registered more voters in the past two days than all of last year. In the middle of her story, she also told me that it was a bunch of niggers registering.
Normally, my response to this sort of thing in my family is to say "I can't control how you talk. But if you are going to talk like this, I will leave the room." I have hated this kind of talk my whole life and have always fought it.
But my aunt is sick. She is probably at the end of her life. She is in the middle of her third fight with cancer and I don't think she is going to get through this one. She, too, is older -- older than this woman. She is retiring soon.
Do I get into it with her? What good does that do? Twenty years ago, yeah, I'll get into it. But it served no purpose to fight that battle with her under the circumstances.
Same with this woman. What good does it do to punish her? How is the world a better place? What does it accomplish?
Especially if you are hiding behind your avatars and anonymous phone calls and a choking cloud of self-righteous anger. That is just ugly.

I think this is a pretty *quality discussion here, and I'm sorry that you're lumping in everyone who dislikes McCain in a neat group called "the left".

I've never voted for a winning president before, having only voted third party my entire life. This year is different.

I think you may be confusing the idea of "party-loyalty" with a whole shitload of citizens who are sick to death of what the neo-conservative movement has done to our country, our constitution, and our treasury.

Never before have I seen this happen; from authorizing torture of our citizens, to FISA, PATRIOT ACT, Iraq War, Katrina, My Pet Goat, the impending recession, "bomb bomb Iran", "you're with us or against us", giving up on the middle-east peace process, gutting regulations, making a laughing stock out of the EPA and the FDA....the list goes on and on and on.

So please, forgive us for getting a little fuckin' cranky about this. But this country, and this constitution is all we got. And the idea that a person like Barack (screw Kerry and the Gore of 2000) who not only possesses great oratory skills and a 360degree worldview, but who could also be the first black POTUS, brings a big goddamn smile to a lot of faces in this country.


cheers

(ps: i now have a gold star!)

>> ^my15minutes:
^ which is why i thought that obama's reminder of the 'bomb bomb iran' quote was the proper response, when mccain was trying to shovel that shit about "walking softly" and not "telegraphing" our response.


Dont forget the Jello on the wall thing...

^dft - which is why i thought that obama's reminder of the 'bomb bomb iran' quote was the proper response, when mccain was trying to shovel that shit about "walking softly" and not "telegraphing" our response.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Fuck the two party system.
They drive this country into the ground.
They work for themselves and subvert one another at every turn: under the guise of working for the people.


I don't see a way around it. Our political system is so much more complex now than it was for the founding fathers that it becomes impossible with more than two choices. We can barely choose 1 out of 2. There really is no other system that will "work" better than this.

@BRM: Obama seems to be trying hard to not use muck in his campaign. Trying to say McCain is worthless in DC would just create more argument and confusion for voters. He's doing a good job of picking battles that can be more clearly shown to the people. For instance, it's pretty well documented that McCain said, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran." So he can't argue much when you call him a warhawk. Also, the current game in politics is always to blame the enemy. Dem's blame GOP and vise versa when something goes wrong. If Obama is really trying to create change, he's gotta change that.

Obama needs to go "BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB, IRAN!" Do a touchdown dance.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sweet! "Coming from someone who talks about bombing Iran" ...

You two!... it sounds like your on the same bloody side and still won't stop fighting...

And i agree Asynch... but he always looks like that to me... like he is trying REALLY hard to remember what it was he was supposed to say... he'd come off so much better if he losened up a little...

Of course... then we get... Ba Ba Ba Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran... so maybe not...

I'm not from the USA, UK, Iraq, Syria or Iran, quite glad i'm not. I know how bad the situation is in Iran, my brother is married to an Iranian woman.

However, Iran having nuclear weapons does not equal them actually using them. If Iran nuked Israel, Iran would effectively be wiped off the map, I can assure you that the Iranian goverment and clergy are fully aware of this. They 're crazy, but not that crazy.

Condemning Israel in my book is a good thing, their behavior towards Palestinians is horrible, I know quite a few people that have witnessed it first hand. Some of the stories almost made me sick to my stomach, 99% of the stuff that happens there doesn't get any media coverage. Also the South African intelligence minister recently said that the situation was far worse than apartheid was in S-Africa, he added that though Israel wasn't a fascist state, their actions against Palestine were.

It's this American attitude that they are always right, they have the right to boss everyone around, they are the ones with the right opinions, they have the right to have all kinds of bombs, they can sell someone WMD's and then invade the same country a few years later because "they might have WMD's", the insanity of them saying "he gassed his own people" when they themselves gassed a whole country a few decades back and have yet to apolagize for it.

I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I don't want any of the other nations to have them either. What's infuriating is the US attitude that they can dictate who has them. How do you think Iranians feel when they see McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb iran"?

Capische?

^"If McCain is elected, any talks with Iran would follow policies that have been proven ineffective."

Isn't 'talking' itself one of the policies that have been proven ineffective in working with Iran? When IAEA inspectors have found plans for nuclear weapon design in Iran and people on the extreme left seem either ignorant of this or unconcerned it's hard for me to take them seriously anymore. And that's not even going into how much of Iran's program was supplied through AQ Khan.
The choice between bombing Iran and allowing Iran working nuclear weapons is fast becoming a very uncomfortable reality.

Technically, she did answer his question. He asked if she thought it was okay to cross Pakistan's borders to go after terrorists, and she said we should do whatever it takes. Not only is she not avoiding the question, she's answering with an emphatic yes. Which makes me shudder to think of her in a tactical situation where our intelligence is later found to be faulty. Sound familiar? Of course she's a fan of the Bush doctrine. She just said she'd shoot first and ask questions later, if at all.

Holy crap, the pessimist in me is scared for November 4th. I saw it once in 2004, when I was certain Bush would lose by a wide majority. I'm actually afraid for this country.

I don't care that she's inexperienced. I care that she's a maverick, like her psycho running mate. BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB IRAN!

"bomb iran, bomb bomb bomb iran"

John McCain is absolutely sadistic.

You wanna stop this illegal war, and all others? Who cares about november--you have all the power you need right now. Create a grassroots campaign which takes a hard look at the reality of this war--start viewing soldiers as you do murderers, rapists, and thieves...start looking down on people who sign up to invade other countries...start condemning not only the leadership but the men and women who enable their policies by following their atrocious orders. If you signed up for a particular reason (say to repel an invasion) then if at any point the reason you initially signed up for is no longer valid--you should be gone. For example, if Russia declared war on us and invaded alaska tomorrow--you might feel compelled, and rightly so, to enlist to defend this country. However, if 10 years down the road you find yourself in Russia occupying their country and trying to turn it into an American territory...you need to resign...the initial conditions of your enlistment are no longer valid, and there is no longer any moral sanction in your role as a solider.

There is no glory or honor in irrational, illegal, aggressive war, and there is no glory or honor in being a solider in such a war. There is nothing honorable about serving as a solider in war...unless...your country is under attack, and our country is not under attack. I would have nothing but contempt for anyone who enlisted in the past 4 years. If you do want to enlist...don't sign a four year contract...being a solider should be just like any other job, if you don't support the current policy you should be able to give your two weeks notice and be gone. If they don't allow this--don't sign up. Its naive and borderline irrational to sign four years of your life away on the premise that current or future leaders will be acting as they currently claim.

If you wanna defend this country, purchase a firearm right now. Keep it at your home, learn to use it smartly and safely, purchase training from local police officers (this is cheap--$50-100), and practice with it on a regular basis--educate yourself on the realities of our foreign policy, and stop pretending that there is anything praiseworthy about the murder and occupation of the citizens of a sovereign nation.