15

WHY OBAMA MUST GO - Reason is his enemy

Posted by ANTImongrelPhilosophy 12 years, 2 months ago to The Gulch: General
11 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

AYN RAND WRITES IN THE WHO IS JG SPEECH that "Every Dictator is a mystic and every mystic is a potential dictator. A mystic craves obedience from men, Not their agreeement." ...."what he seeks is power over reality and over men's means of perceiving it...." (p 1045) Creating a Fake reality in which he can lead from.
SCARY BUT TRUE. AR saw this communist coming because she lived it.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Nietzsche 12 years, 2 months ago
    Obama and his sympathizers are being completly reasonable within their own frame of reference.

    They believe society must be controlled for its own good. They see capitalism as an unsavory force fostering greed and exploitation. They see nationalism the same way. The "American Century" to them is a sordid tale of bullying and exploitation. Allowing the cream to rise, to them, is unfair.

    Because they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, any means is justified to achieve their end.

    You see, it is those who diagree with their world view who are the unreasonable ones.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago
      AND WORSE its because it does not fit into their world of 2+2=5. Rand Wrote about freedom and choice. It is choice that allows man to rationally think. Ideologues cannot choose because they are told what to think. (ie war on women, rich hate the poor, ETC>) "Choice is yours to make. THat choice- the dedication to ones highest potential - is made by accepting the fact that the noblest act you have ever performed is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that 2+2=4" p.1058
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JeanPaulZodeaux 12 years, 2 months ago
    There is too much emphasis placed upon the individual elected to the office of President and way too little focus placed upon ones own individual understanding of the law. It was disturbing to watch so many Ron Paul advocates treat him with the same Messianic Legacy that was granted Obama by his supporters. It was if many supporters of Ron Paul believed all they had to do was elect him as President and then the intrusive government would eventually be reigned in. Of course, even if Ron Paul were elected he could never achieve such a goal of limiting government alone. He would need to due diligence and vigilant efforts of the people, each individual acting as a free and sovereign individual in-spite of the plethora of legislative acts that would demand surrender to the federal government, the state, and the local municipality or town where legislatures love to dictate.

    It is not, however, the federal government who has imposed so many licensing schemes, although no doubt they have imposed some of their own. The vast majority of licensing schemes are imposed on a state and local level. License, by definition, is the grant of permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal, and yet look at all the state and local government demand be licensed. How could a President cure that ill?

    Every state in the nation has a DMV that claims that "driving is a privilege and not a right", yet many states come with Constitutions that echo the exact same sentiment of the 9th Amendment. How could those states find the lawful authority to determine that driving is not a right? What harm does the act of driving - in and of itself - cause? What makes the DMV's insistence it is not a right legal? Why it is your own voluntary application and signature on a contract that does! If you are a licensed driver then you have voluntarily surrendered your right to drive and made this sacrifice for the mere privilege to drive.

    Licensed attorneys? How is practicing law illegal? What licensing attorneys has effectively done is create a priest class lawyer sect that have colluded and conspired with the state to abide by government rules, and when it comes to the zealous defense of someone charged with a crime by the state or federal government suddenly there is the great potential for a profound conflict of interest.

    Marriage license? Since when was getting married illegal? As long as all these dubious licensing schemes electing a President is distraction.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 11 years, 11 months ago
    Reason may be his (and Liberals in general) enemy. But ignorance of reality and history are their friends. It doesn't matter that authoritarian, top-down, centrally-controlled gov't and economic models have been tried before (e.g., the Soviet Union, East Germany) both ending with the same result; the Liberals will press-on with their agenda anyway. It's this same stupid mind-set that puzzles them whenever they raise taxes and expect all this tax revenue (See California): individuals and businesses close business and relocate somewhere else, they change their plans based on REALITY and FACTS. They don't ignore it, they make the plans and adjust accordingly. This may look like common sense to us, but not to Liberals/Communists/Socialists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by etwfj 12 years ago
    Nietzsche, Obama and company also can not see a confict in their have money and power they did not earn.
    Money and power are only bad when others have it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by zach09 12 years, 1 month ago
    I wish his opponent wasn't such a shitty candidate, and I wish 3rd parties had a chance in the election. Too bad Obama is going to win. :(
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo