Zeus

Iran's Counter-Revolution

36 posts in this topic

I think the current virtual silence on the part of Western leaders regarding the momentous events in Iran is appalling. This is philosophical subjectivism, political relativisim, and moral equivalency triumphant. :-(

With the fate of 70 million desperate, miserable, and mostly-enslaved Iranians hanging in the balance, NOW is the time for Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, and others to declare that freedom is an absolute, undeniable, and irrevocable birthright of man. They need to come out unambiguously on the side of the Iranian people and against the Iranian dictators.

These Free World leaders -- if they are leaders and do champion freedom -- should loudly and pointedly make the case that all individuals, everywhere on earth, have an utter and untouchable right to liberty and justice. Individual rights, they should note, are sacred and can never be taken away by any state. Any oddball fanatics, medieval theocrats, and reclusive dictators who say otherwise are nothing more than criminals, tyrants, traitors, and loathsome depraved usurpers who richly deserve to be overthrown and executed.

Even if America, Britain, France, and Germany today manifestly refuse to lift a military finger -- and take out the highly-vulnerable, hated, and evil Iranian autocrats -- at the very least these nations and their leaders should openly and vigorously declare their solidarity with the hideously suffering Iranian people. And they should demand that the monsters in charge of Iran at least adhere to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This is a minimal statement of the rights of man, and should not be hard to follow. It's also a statement of principles to which the Iranian dictatorship is morally and legally bound. If nothing else, the heads of state of the relatively liberal Western nations need to break their current cowardly and depraved silence, and emphatically make clear their support -- at least verbally and morally -- for the brave and heroic freedom-fighters of Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the current virtual silence on the part of Western leaders regarding the momentous events in Iran is appalling. This is philosophical subjectivism, political relativisim, and moral equivalency triumphant. :-(

With the fate of 70 million desperate, miserable, and mostly-enslaved Iranians hanging in the balance, NOW is the time for Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, and others to declare that freedom is an absolute, undeniable, and irrevocable birthright of man. They need to come out unambiguously on the side of the Iranian people and against the Iranian dictators.

These Free World leaders -- if they are leaders and do champion freedom -- should loudly and pointedly make the case that all individuals, everywhere on earth, have an utter and untouchable right to liberty and justice. Individual rights, they should note, are sacred and can never be taken away by any state. Any oddball fanatics, medieval theocrats, and reclusive dictators who say otherwise are nothing more than criminals, tyrants, traitors, and loathsome depraved usurpers who richly deserve to be overthrown and executed.

Even if America, Britain, France, and Germany today manifestly refuse to lift a military finger -- and take out the highly-vulnerable, hated, and evil Iranian autocrats -- at the very least these nations and their leaders should openly and vigorously declare their solidarity with the hideously suffering Iranian people. And they should demand that the monsters in charge of Iran at least adhere to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This is a minimal statement of the rights of man, and should not be hard to follow. It's also a statement of principles to which the Iranian dictatorship is morally and legally bound. If nothing else, the heads of state of the relatively liberal Western nations need to break their current cowardly and depraved silence, and emphatically make clear their support -- at least verbally and morally -- for the brave and heroic freedom-fighters of Iran.

You are asking for the impossible. Obama and the rest could not ever declare that "freedom is an absolute...birthright of man". They would have to be different men than they are.

No one should "adhere to the UN's" anything. The UN is a barbaric joke.

How can cowards give moral support to heroism? And how would it sincerely mean anything if they could?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a minimal statement of the rights of man, and should not be hard to follow. It's also a statement of principles to which the Iranian dictatorship is morally and legally bound. If nothing else, the heads of state of the relatively liberal Western nations need to break their current cowardly and depraved silence, and emphatically make clear their support -- at least verbally and morally -- for the brave and heroic freedom-fighters of Iran.

What I am hearing from the "Iranian street" is a complaint that the election was rigged. What I am NOT hearing is a call to depose the Shi'ite Imams from their position of political power. When I hear that, then I will believe there is a revolution or a counter-revolution in Iran.

I would suggest that you not hold your breath until the majority of Iranians call for political and economic liberty in the way you comprehend these to be. In the Islamic Domains there is no notion of liberty, rights and freedom such as we have here in the West.

Keep your eye on where the Shi'ite clergy end up after all this has settled down. My guess is that they will still be on top and every Friday night in the Shi'ite Mosques will be a Muslim rave party.

See: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8602483019158148765

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am hearing from the "Iranian street" is a complaint that the election was rigged. What I am NOT hearing is a call to depose the Shi'ite Imams from their position of political power. When I hear that, then I will believe there is a revolution or a counter-revolution in Iran.

Iran's theocratic system is so fundamentally bad that there is nothing to "rig". Protests that ignore that are meaningless.

At least some prominent conservatives in the US are propertly speaking out against this. Obama is of course "diplomatically" sucking up to the Iranian regime, defying the traditional US position of giving at least moral support in solidarity with those openly protesting tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barack Obama is said to be nothing if not shrewd. And I believe this. But he's also profoundly philosophically ignorant. In the current volatile fluid situation, where anything could hurt or help -- where any small word or deed could prove to be the "tipping point" for freedom or slavery -- I think the President has made two colossal errors.

First, he let it be known, within 24 hours after the election mega-fraud(!), that he was desperate to "engage" with the dictators, no matter how illegitimate and evil. This had to quietly break the heart of the Iranian freedom-fighters in the street and on the ramparts. Second, earlier today, he said that the reform candidate Mousavi wasn't all that different from the current "president," wack-job monster Ahmadinijad. But this is irrelevant. The protestors are battling for individual freedom -- not Iman A over Iman B.

Two gross blunders, Mr. President! You need to raise the level of your foreign policy game, Obama! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the current virtual silence on the part of Western leaders regarding the momentous events in Iran is appalling. This is philosophical subjectivism, political relativisim, and moral equivalency triumphant. :-(

With the fate of 70 million desperate, miserable, and mostly-enslaved Iranians hanging in the balance, NOW is the time for Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, and others to declare that freedom is an absolute, undeniable, and irrevocable birthright of man.

Western leaders are speaking out:

Sarkozy denounces Iran vote 'fraud'

PARIS (AFP) — French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday branded Iran's election result a fraud as the international outcry over the security forces' crackdown on the opposition in Tehran intensified.

Governments from Asia to Europe voiced concern about the violence that erupted Monday during rallies protesting the hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election, with US President Barack Obama saying he had "deep concerns" while also not wanting to meddle in Iran's affairs.

But while some governments tried to avoid taking sides, Sarkozy said the unrest was a direct result of Ahmadinejad's failings in his first term.

"The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction," said the French leader.

"It is a tragedy, but it is not negative to have a real opinion movement that tries to break its chains," Sarkozy said.

"If Ahmadinejad has really made progress since the last election and if he really represents two thirds of the electorate... why has this violence erupted?"

[...]

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said questions about the validity of the outcome needed to be answered and that the violent scenes threatened Iran's international standing.

"The regime must address the serious questions which have been asked about the conduct of the Iranian elections," said Brown.

"The way the regime responds to legitimate protests will have implications for Iran's relationships with the rest of the world in the future."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said there "must be an end to the violence carried out by the security forces on demonstrators" while his Dutch counterpart Maxime Verhagen summoned the Iranian charge d'affaires.

"It cannot be that peaceful demonstrations are broken up violently," a statement issued by his office said.

In Japan, Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone said his country was "extremely concerned" about the situation while Australia's Foreign Minister Stephen Smith expressed his disquiet over "images of serious human rights abuses that we've seen on camera and in photos."

Rights groups also denounced the bloody crackdown with the New York-based Human Rights Watch saying the Ahmadinejad government "has a responsibility to stop the use of unlawful force against protesters."

[...]

Obama meanwhile said he would not meddle in internal Iranian politics -- reflecting a more widespread reluctance of governments to be sucked into the maelstrom.

"I have said before that I have deep concerns about the election. I think that the world has deep concerns about the election," Obama said.

"It is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling -- the US president meddling in Iranian elections."

[...]

(Link to entire article)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barack Obama is said to be nothing if not shrewd. And I believe this. But he's also profoundly philosophically ignorant. In the current volatile fluid situation, where anything could hurt or help -- where any small word or deed could prove to be the "tipping point" for freedom or slavery -- I think the President has made two colossal errors.

First, he let it be known, within 24 hours after the election mega-fraud(!), that he was desperate to "engage" with the dictators, no matter how illegitimate and evil. This had to quietly break the heart of the Iranian freedom-fighters in the street and on the ramparts. Second, earlier today, he said that the reform candidate Mousavi wasn't all that different from the current "president," wack-job monster Ahmadinijad. But this is irrelevant. The protestors are battling for individual freedom -- not Iman A over Iman B.

Two gross blunders, Mr. President! You need to raise the level of your foreign policy game, Obama! ;)

The only way you can say they were blunders is if you held that Obama is basically a good man. He is Not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way you can say they were blunders is if you held that Obama is basically a good man. He is Not.

I think Obama basically is good man. Certainly better than George Bush or John McCain. His problem, like the others, is he basically knows nothing about politics, government, and law. But he is intelligent, educated, hard-working, intellectually curious, and determined to learn -- none of which was true of his predecessor. So I call his recent acts: intellectual blunders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Obama basically is good man.

On the basis of what evidence do you arrive at this conclusion?

[Obama is [c]ertainly better than George Bush or John McCain.

Upon what criteria do you base your comparison?

But he is intelligent, educated, hard-working, intellectually curious, and determined to learn

Would you say that Mr. Obama's recent speech in Cairo, though admittedly a product of his expensive Ivy League education, was an illustration of "intelligence", "intellectual curiosity" and/or a "determination to learn"?

If so, can you point to specific referents within the speech that demonstrate these points.

If not, can you provide actual illustrations from other sources and/or occasion of these attributes on Mr. Obama's part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can anyone expect Obama to challenge his brothers in tyranny? Why would he give Americans (much less Iranians) any reason for hope? Sarkozy's comments notwithstanding, the entire Western leadership, with the faintly possible exception of Merkel, are committed to a global dictatorship. Fascism is all the rage.

I just heard a commentator on FoxNews (on Greta van Susteren's On The Record) postulate that the suppression of this uprising may mean the rise of Ahmadinejad and the Iranian 'security' forces, such that Ayatollah Khamenei and the mullahs begin taking orders from the President, not vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Obama basically is good man. ...

Contrary to all evidence. He started his political career by asking two known Weather Underground terrorists (self-described communists) to sponsor him; publicly admired his father's ideals, while dishonestly failing to identify those ideals (the National Review has unearthed Obama Senior's writings: he called for forcing Kenyans onto Soviet-style collective farms and raising taxes to 100%); admittedly sought out Marxist professors at college; supported the corrupt ACORN organization (guilty of extorting banks as well as massive voter fraud); once he gained an audience beyond his core Marxist followers, massively lied about the nature of his views; committed perjury when he took the oath of office; and now that he has begun to "rule," has done everything he can to destroy our freedom: looting the country on the most massive scale in history, impoverishing future generations, unconstitutionally seizing control of industry after industry, granting the spoils to his corrupt supporters (the U.A.W., ACORN, etc.), while issuing vicious threats against those who oppose him, even assuming judicial powers in negating established bankruptcy law. Judging strictly by his actions, he regards the U.S. Constitution as so much toilet paper.

For specific documentation, see numerous posts on various threads under Current Events. This bastard's evil has been extensively documented.

As I once replied to someone's Amazon review: Don't you have any values, anyone in your life you've ever loved? Then picture them torn apart by a terrorist's bomb. And then picture Obama going to the murderers and shaking their hand. Don't kid yourself! He would do it to you! He's already done it to others!

He's nothing but a nihilistic would-be dictator, with no respect for human life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For specific documentation, see numerous posts on various threads under Current Events. This bastard's evil has been extensively documented.

But he has to be good. He is merely ignorant, having overcome his success and experience in Chicago politics and Harvard Law School to the point where now he knows nothing about politics, government, and law. Besides, he is intelligent, educated, hard-working, intellectually curious, and determined to learn -- all proof of moral virtue. Like Stalin and Lenin. See? You used the wrong standards, like his dishonestly manipulative, power-seeking collectivism and attraction to Marxist terrorists, which are all mere innocent mistakes. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious Vespasiano: Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow not a person of quality and integrity? If so, America and the whole world disputes you. Doesn't Obama stand head and shoulders above his virulently racist and anti-American wife and preacher? Didn't he campaign with considerably more nobility than Hillary? Isn't he more competent than liar, in-over-her-head, Nancy "deer in the headlights" Pelosi? Isn't he distinguished in all kinds of ways above that mediocrity Harry Reid? Wouldn't Obama be a far more interesting person to talk to at a dinner party than most politicians? Isn't he a better person to have next to you in a foxhole? Isn't he a superior guy to buy a used car from? I think Obama is the new Adlai Stevenson! Except for being a politician -- and thus forced to lie and talk ambiguously all day long, in order to get votes -- how is Obama anything other than a basically good guy with a notoriously bad Nanny State philosophy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious Vespasiano: Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow not a person of quality and integrity? If so, America and the whole world disputes you. Doesn't Obama stand head and shoulders above his virulently racist and anti-American wife and preacher? Didn't he campaign with considerably more nobility than Hillary? Isn't he more competent than liar, in-over-her-head, Nancy "deer in the headlights" Pelosi? Isn't he distinguished in all kinds of ways above that mediocrity Harry Reid? Wouldn't Obama be a far more interesting person to talk to at a dinner party than most politicians? Isn't he a better person to have next to you in a foxhole? Isn't he a superior guy to buy a used car from? I think Obama is the new Adlai Stevenson! Except for being a politician -- and thus forced to lie and talk ambiguously all day long, in order to get votes -- how is Obama anything other than a basically good guy with a notoriously bad Nanny State philosophy?

Obama's intellectual roots are with Marxists, Saul Ailinsky a virulent left wing activist and America hater and the old school Dailey style political machinations of Chicago. And then there is his former buddy The Reverend Wrong (right?). Obama learned how to push his brother under the bus should the necessity arise. Obama plays by Chicago Rules. He ditched his mentor Reverend Wrong without blinking when the necessity arose.

That being said, he is clearly a shrewd operator. He is a sophisticate and there is nothing naive or innocent about his modalities are his objectives. He is a flat out Statist. Think of Lyndon Johnson with class and polish and no straw and hayseeds in his hair. And he doesn't have an accent either.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Obama] started his political career by asking two known Weather Underground terrorists (self-described communists) to sponsor him; publicly admired his father's ideals, while dishonestly failing to identify those ideals (the National Review has unearthed Obama Senior's writings: he called for forcing Kenyans onto Soviet-style collective farms and raising taxes to 100%); admittedly sought out Marxist professors at college; supported the corrupt ACORN organization (guilty of extorting banks as well as massive voter fraud); once he gained an audience beyond his core Marxist followers, massively lied about the nature of his views; committed perjury when he took the oath of office; and now that he has begun to "rule," has done everything he can to destroy our freedom: looting the country on the most massive scale in history, impoverishing future generations, unconstitutionally seizing control of industry after industry, granting the spoils to his corrupt supporters (the U.A.W., ACORN, etc.), while issuing vicious threats against those who oppose him, even assuming judicial powers in negating established bankruptcy law. Judging strictly by his actions, he regards the U.S. Constitution as so much toilet paper.

For specific documentation, see numerous posts on various threads under Current Events. This bastard's evil has been extensively documented.

...

He's nothing but a nihilistic would-be dictator, with no respect for human life.

George Bush is no better. He bluffed his way through life -- and it really cost us. He gave us 9/11 and the current Depression. He trashed the deficit and made America and the West seem hateful.

Bush began life as a wastrel, drinking and doing coke. He dodged the draft, and bankrupted all his businesses. Then he became a Jesus-freak. Bush tortured and brazenly lied about it. He held without trial -- which is evil beyond description. He trashed US law, the constitution, the Uniform code of Military Justice, the UN code against torture, and all of American tradition and human decency. He did this while kissing the ass of our enemies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He also never shut up about the goodness and greatness of that loathsome ideology, Islam. He called it a "great" ideology of "peace" that was "hijacked."

I could go on -- but Bush exhausts me. I bet America and the world is a relatively better, freer, richer, happier place after 4 years of Obama than after 4 years of Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious Vespasiano: Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow not a person of quality and integrity? If so, America and the whole world disputes you. Doesn't Obama stand head and shoulders above his virulently racist and anti-American wife and preacher? Didn't he campaign with considerably more nobility than Hillary? Isn't he more competent than liar, in-over-her-head, Nancy "deer in the headlights" Pelosi? Isn't he distinguished in all kinds of ways above that mediocrity Harry Reid? Wouldn't Obama be a far more interesting person to talk to at a dinner party than most politicians? Isn't he a better person to have next to you in a foxhole? Isn't he a superior guy to buy a used car from? I think Obama is the new Adlai Stevenson! Except for being a politician -- and thus forced to lie and talk ambiguously all day long, in order to get votes -- how is Obama anything other than a basically good guy with a notoriously bad Nanny State philosophy?

ARF Forum = Ayn Rand Fans Forum

not

Anti-Reason Fans Forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
George Bush is no better. He bluffed his way through life -- and it really cost us. He gave us 9/11 and the current Depression. He trashed the deficit and made America and the West seem hateful.

Bush began life as a wastrel, drinking and doing coke. He dodged the draft, and bankrupted all his businesses. Then he became a Jesus-freak. Bush tortured and brazenly lied about it. He held without trial -- which is evil beyond description. He trashed US law, the constitution, the Uniform code of Military Justice, the UN code against torture, and all of American tradition and human decency. He did this while kissing the ass of our enemies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He also never shut up about the goodness and greatness of that loathsome ideology, Islam. He called it a "great" ideology of "peace" that was "hijacked."

I could go on -- but Bush exhausts me. I bet America and the world is a relatively better, freer, richer, happier place after 4 years of Obama than after 4 years of Bush.

We're not in a depression. It is a recession, and one that is largely media inflated. Look up the difference. He certainly helped bring along the current recession, but a lot of those seeds were sown a while ago. What he really gave us is the jump start that Obama could only have dreamed of being handed to him in the form of bailouts, and government strong-arming of banks.

Bush gave us 9/11? This is to miss over two decades of evidence. Of all the past presidents, from Carter to Bush (GW), Bush is the least to blame for 9/11. Yes, it happened on his watch. And he would have certainly done just as little as all the rest if not for 9/11 8 months into his presidency. Carter, with his impotence in the Iranian hostage crisis, and Clinton doing nothing through a series of attacks deserve more of the blame. Bush gave us Obama, that is what will curse his name in history.

Made America and the West seem hateful? In whose eyes? I'll tell you what he made us look like - WEAK. Hateful? Completely out of touch with reality maybe. And quite frankly - who gives a damn what other countries think. Are we a nation of laws and principles, or are we a seventh grade class of schoolgirls worried about what people's feelings towards us are?

He certainly trampled on some laws. Who cares about the UN anything.

How can you even possibly say that we will be freer in 4 years of Obama than of Bush? Have you not viewed any news in the last couple of months? You tell me how, and be specific, how in the next 4 years we will be freer under Obama? How will this come about? He is taking over, fascist-style, every major segment of the US economy. And he hasn't brought out his bigger ambitions yet. How is that freer? Think it's temporary? Just until we get through this "crisis"? Think again.

His policies will only spurn on more crisis's to be met with more and more take over. I think he very well knows this, his education and associations seems to indicate he would know this as a matter of strategy. Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? It details how this works out. So how do you go from a downward spiral into fascism to freer than the Bush years in four years because of Obama and through his continued tenure I would really like to hear.

I don't think McCain and Bush are evil men (at least to the standards of modern politicians!). I think they are befuddled, pragmatic, altruists in an age where their sort of distorted thinking is having real immediate consequences. I don't think they are good men either, I think them inept.

Obama on the other hand. I would agree he is more intelligent. He is not a man of integrity. A simple review of his past shows that. He is a man incapable of understanding what the concept could ever mean. This is a man that purposefully and consciously pursues a path of control and rule through force. While McCain and Bush would actually believe their own crap about taking over to save freedom and capitalism, Obama has no such illusions. He is not here to protect individual rights (something the other two would at least pay lip service to) or the free markets. He is here to dictate and control the markets - that is - us.

They used to speak of "the cold hand of reason" - well we are going to find out about "the cold hand of collectivist epistemology".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow not a person of quality and integrity?

How do you define quality? Integrity? Where in his life's history do you find evidence for this? Integrity is not equal to acting on a vicious philosophy or idea.

If so, America and the whole world disputes you.

The whole world? Are you watching nothing but Chris Matthews on Hardball? And is that seriously an argument you are putting forward. Most the world believes in God (or some god), should I ditch my atheism? Is truth a matter of numbers for you? A vote on who likes who the most? Is this high school? It would not matter one bit if the entire planet got on their knees and worshiped Obama as a God. It would not mean he was a person(god?) of quality or a man(god?) of integrity.

Doesn't Obama stand head and shoulders above his virulently racist and anti-American wife and preacher?

What evidence is there that he does? He is still married to his wife. And he only ditched Wright when it was politically expedient. And even if you were somehow to prove that he did, so what? What does that prove?

"Mr. Hemp is a man of quality and integrity."

"How so?"

"Well, he's head and shoulders above his bigoted and anti-American wife and preacher!"

Doesn't sound so great that way, does it?

Didn't he campaign with considerably more nobility than Hillary?

What does that mean? And is that a voting criteria? They were both shrewd socialists, but he has more subjective nobility. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Isn't he distinguished in all kinds of ways above that mediocrity Harry Reid?

What ways? His congressional record? His associations with Marxists? Street thugs (ACORN)? His racist preacher?

Wouldn't Obama be a far more interesting person to talk to at a dinner party than most politicians?

Now you are just being bizarre. What possible point are you trying to make? "Hey, Stalin could have a temper from time to time, but what a marvelous dinner guest!" I don't know about most people, but whether or not someone makes a good dinner guest is outside not only judging them as a politician, but also of morality.

Isn't he more competent than liar, in-over-her-head, Nancy "deer in the headlights" Pelosi?

He is a more competent liar, yes. You are certainly right, here. He makes Bill Clinton look like a stammering idiot. Very slick.

Isn't he a better person to have next to you in a foxhole?

Than who? My very imaginative mind cannot even put Obama in a foxhole. And since Obama is the one holding the gun, and the gun is pointed at me, why in the world would I want to be in the foxhole with him?

Isn't he a superior guy to buy a used car from?

What? Does he have experience in this? Just because he's taking over the auto industry doesn't qualify him to sell or make cars. And this begs your original question as his "quality" and "integrity" have not been established.

Except for being a politician -- and thus forced to lie and talk ambiguously all day long, in order to get votes -- how is Obama anything other than a basically good guy with a notoriously bad Nanny State philosophy?

I reject the notion that being a politician necessitates lying and talking ambiguously all day long. Who is forcing him? Why doesn't he know speak the truth now? He's already got the job. Or maybe he has to lie to ensure he gets re-elected in '12, and then he will speak up and set us free and tell us the truth about how he is a champion of reason, and individual rights, and a free, un-fettered market.

As for the last. I don't separate the sin from the sinner. And he is acting on his philosophy. There is nothing good about a person who pursues power and control such as he does. By your reasoning why can't we say that Hitler was basically a good guy with a notoriously bad Total State philosophy? I mean he was nice to dogs I've heard. Kissed babies at rallies, and people say he was a great orator.

Everything you said I could apply to Hitler equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious Vespasiano: Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow not a person of quality and integrity?

Wow ... absolutely not. He continually works to deceive people. For example, he claims he is not proposing socialized medicine, when that is exactly what he is proposing. He continually engages in double speak, which means he lies all of the time.

He is not better than Bush, btw. Bush is a halfway decent human being, with bad ideas. Obama is a bad human being with bad ideas. McCain, yeah, he may be better than McCain, but these things are hard to judge.

None-the-less, if you look around you, you will see that Obama is destroying America in huge swaths on virtually every front. The guy is anti-American at core and deserves no credit otherwise. He is our post-modernist president. Let’s hope America survives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how is Obama anything other than a basically good guy with a notoriously bad Nanny State philosophy?

I'm going to echo Thoyd here and ask how it's possible to be a good man with a bad philosophy? In order to be a good man, one must be and do that well. But how does a man decide what actions to take? It is his philosophy, whether implicitly held or explicitly known, that guides a man's decisions and thus his actions. So, if Obama has a bad philosophy then he'll consistently be (or said another way, act) poorly... he'll be a bad man.

Think of any decision you've ever made, perhaps a recent one that's easy to remember. Well, that one decision implies an entire philosophy whether you were aware of it or not, because you somehow came to a conclusion about how you should act.

The method you used to come to that conclusion implied your epistemology.

The conclusion about how you should act implied your ethics.

As men we cannot escape the fact that we have and use philosophy and that philosophy has actual real results, whether we're aware of it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how is Obama anything other than a basically good guy with a notoriously bad Nanny State philosophy?

I'm going to echo Thoyd here and ask how it's possible to be a good man with a bad philosophy?

It's possible to be honestly mistaken. Lots of people fall into that category. Although, I don't think Obama is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious Vespasiano: Do you really think Barack Obama is somehow not a person of quality and integrity? If so, America and the whole world disputes you.

That's right . . . I most definitely do NOT consider Barack Obama to be a person of "quality and integrity": his own statements, actions and chosen affiliations and alliances condemn him on that front. Furthermore, even if it were true or even possible for you to establish as a certainty that "America (which part?) and the whole world (which part?) disputes [me]", it would be wholly irrelevant with respect to my own assessment of him. After all, consensus is NOT evidence of reality.

Doesn't Obama stand head and shoulders above his virulently racist and anti-American wife and preacher?

And yet . . . he chose to marry that "virulently racist and anti-American wife" and to attend for over 20 years that "virulently racist and anti-American" preacher's church. I fail to see how that sets Mr. Obama "head and shoulders above them", unless one considers as a mark of distinction the kind of selflessness of the self-abasement variety required by an individual to pursue such destructive relationships. I most certainly do not.

Didn't he campaign with considerably more nobility than Hillary?

No. As a matter of fact I see nothing "noble" about either.

Isn't he more competent than liar, in-over-her-head, Nancy "deer in the headlights" Pelosi?

More competent at what, precisely? Perhaps you meant he is a more competent liar or, rather, lies without looking like a “deer in the headlights”. If so, I can agree with you on this point.

Isn't he distinguished in all kinds of ways above that mediocrity Harry Reid?

I suppose one could say that Mr. Obama is more “distinguished” than Mr. Reid; however, I find that those marks of distinction most certainly do not accrue to his favor as positive attributes. Quite the opposite.

Wouldn't Obama be a far more interesting person to talk to at a dinner party than most politicians?

I would never willingly choose to attend a dinner party at which Mr. Obama or anyone even remotely like him was a guest.

Isn't he a better person to have next to you in a foxhole?

God no!! But then there is very little chance of that scenario since, on the basis of his own stated convictions, it is most unlikely that one such as Mr. Obama would ever commit himself to the kind of endeavor – let alone the reasons for it -- that would actually put him physically into a foxhole in the first place.

I think Obama is the new Adlai Stevenson!

I would not consider that an unqualified compliment but, within the context of that particular comparison, I do consider it to be an unqualified insult to Mr. Stevenson.

Except for being a politician -- and thus forced to lie and talk ambiguously all day long, in order to get votes -- how is Obama anything other than a basically good guy with a notoriously bad Nanny State philosophy?

Who is forcing Mr. Obama "to lie and talk ambiguously all day long" and, even if it were true that lying and talking ambiguously were required for a politician to "get votes" (did Mr. Lincoln lie and talk ambiguously to win the election of 1860 I wonder?), why would a "basically good guy" allow himself to engage in such behavior or to pursue a vocation for which such behavior is a presumed requirement in the first place?

Isn't he a superior guy to buy a used car from?

I'm not in the habit of buying used cars but I suppose, on this point, you might be correct. Would that Mr. Obama had taken up that profession instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said, he is clearly a shrewd operator. He is a sophisticate and there is nothing naive or innocent about his modalities are his objectives. He is a flat out Statist. Think of Lyndon Johnson with class and polish and no straw and hayseeds in his hair.

I think Floyd Ferris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, some people are confusing personal quality with quality of political/philosophical beliefs. There's a relationship, but nothing like a one-to-one correspondence. At some point, an individual's level of honesty, courage, integrity, virtue, character, etc. stand apart from that person's ostensive ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So an unspeakably corrupt Marxist who's trying to kill America--and who's fraternized with bloody-handed terrorist murderers--is somehow not to be judged evil?

Am I the only one to hear Grieg's "In the Hall of the Mountain King" blaring out, strident and clear?

I do not see how inviting us to consider a killer as a decent man, constitutes an attempt at intellectual discussion. I believe we are merely being baited by a TROLL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites