14

Can a dedicated member of the Gulch support Obama?

Posted by mdk2608 10 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
265 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Just wanted to solicit comments and feedback for us to think about.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 6.
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I think you need to check some premises"
    That does not mean anything without context. An argument can be unsound b/c of faulty reasoning or bad premises. Just saying something is unsound without saying what is unsound and why is just meaningless.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry, but A = A. The last time that strategy worked was at the end of Merlin with respect to Queen Mab. That was the end of magic, a change that Gulchers would appreciate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    By that definition, Clinton's train wreck at the end of 2000 and the first 20 days of 2001 is still better than Bush or Obama.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How does that follow? What good can come out of this Long Night?

    Or do you look forward to the kind of total collapse Rand envisioned in AS?

    Speaking of which--but I'll submit another question.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It wouldn't matter a whit to me except for the fact that the majority of the nation continues to hurt. If these vacations were totally on his dime, that would be another thing, but most of the costs are on the taxpayers dime. That's you and me. I don't know about you (but I suspect), but I am no better off today than I was when he first entered office. In fact, since costs continue to go up, but my income doesn't, then I'm actually worse off.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Be careful, I'm still here, even though there are several here who continue to trying to drive me out. I don't agree much with CG, but so long as he states that he sees value in AS, I don't have a problem with him being here (b'sides, I need someone else to take some arrows when my back is full of arrows) ;-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ... yeah, and that's looking more and more like the Upside of any legacy of his...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think that any Gulcher would support those actions, but they must also be put into context. I certainly don't think that anyone would say that the TSA or Iraq war were specific objectives of Bush when elected. Nor was the massive bailout. These things came to be based on the circumstances. One can make a rational argument that they were wrong actions, but I don't see an argument that they were pre-meditated actions prior to events.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I was unaware of Eisenhower's prowess on the links. Point to you.

    That was also, however, 60 years ago, and Eisenhower can hardly be called one of this nation's most incompetent presidents - a distinction our current Commander-in-Chief is primed to win by a landslide.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by slfisher 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Okay, but you said he'd played more golf than any other President in history, and I was demonstrating that that isn't true.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hey, E... allow the entendre to be double, ok?
    One of the key elements of Good Humor is The Surprise Twist At The End of The Sentence, and your comment hit that one out of the park for that aspect of 'funniness'!

    And I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you on the gist of your answer, either!
    :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    *cough*..*cough*...choking on my milk...Please explain in detail how you arrive at that conclusion?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rex_Little 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Bush gave us TSA, the Iraq war, the start of massive bailouts, and other expensive expansions of government. Other than Obamacare, BO has mostly just expanded the evils begun under Bush and others; I don't assign as much blame to that as I do to those who start bad programs, because these things tend to take on a life of their own once begun.

    I will say that depending on how Obamacare plays out, it could end up dropping Obama below Bush in my estimation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 10 years, 2 months ago
    Unequivocally NO, in the context of your question. You cannot be loyal to opposing views. You must pick one to be loyal to.
    Had you not used the word dedicated, and simply said, can a Member of the Gulch support Obama the answer would of course be yes.

    Dedicated:
    ded·i·cat·ed
    ˈdedəˌkādəd/
    adjective
    adjective: dedicated
    (of a person) devoted to a task or purpose; having single-minded loyalty or integrity.

    The definition of Support:
    Full Definition of SUPPORT
    1: to endure bravely or quietly : bear
    2a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate <supports fair play> (3) : to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes>
    b (1) : assist, help <bombers supported the ground troops> (2) : to act with (a star actor) (3) : to bid in bridge so as to show support for
    c : to provide with substantiation : corroborate <support an alibi>

    The reason is simple. Obama and ALL his policies are based on the opposite or "reason." One cannot support a person who in every way is diametrically opposed to a principal. To "support" Obama is to do the opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

    That is no different to me than expecting the Jews to Vote Hitler into office, or at least ask the question, Can a real Jew, accept/support Hitler as their President.

    Although with the contempt Obama has shown Israel over the past 6 year, and the Jews keep voting for him and supporting him I am beginning to wonder about the premise of my previous question.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo