RoR: Forum

lol. as a non capitalizer, i support bisno.

especially since his post actually made sense, and lindsay seems to constantly, irrationally, support president bush.

ug, and what's with calling everyone saddamite? is it as a joke? i mean, to be opposed to bush's violation of the separation of church and state has nothing to do with support for saddam.

only a commie bastard like you could think otherwise! (see, everyone who disagrees with me on any issue, from now on, is a commie)

: )
eli

Post 21

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 11:46am

Well...if Pope Joe can verify...ok then. : P

Post 22

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 1:37pm

Mr. Bisno, you give capitalists a bad name...

Post 23

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 3:31pm

Michael Badnarik will be to Bush what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore, and will cause Bush to lose the election. Bush is not a principled man, and is far from a conservative or 'republican'. He is more Big Government than Clinton; he has out spent every President since Carter, maybe further, even without defense spending being added to the equation.

I have heard so many times that John Kerry would be soft on defense, despite the Democrats long war history. One must also remember that John Kerry, as well as the rest of the civilized world, supported the war against Afghanistan and terrorism in general. Unfortunately George Bush went to war with Iraq, probably out of evasion, instead of focusing on real terror threats, including Al Queda and a government that the U.S. has listed as the leading state sponsor of terrorism for decades, Iran. His decision to go to Iraq has caused so much discontent that it might put our National Security at risk, as there is or will be a great hesitation for future conflict with real threats.

As for President Bush, he is not the defense candidate his election machine touts him to be. If Bush had his priorities straight and would have put the same effort behind Afghanistan as he did in Iraq; if he invaded Afghanistan like he did Iraq, Usama bin Laden would have probably been captured or killed. Instead Bush decided to let the Northern Alliance fight our war there, the tribal warriors who let Usama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. Bush has also chosen not to follow his own 'Bush Doctrine', allowing Iran to both sponsor terrorism and build nuclear weapons. Yet another disgusting betrayal of the War on Terrorism is Bush including Pakistan, a country that threatened India (an ally of the U.S. and all of Western Civilization) with nuclear war, only a year ago.

It's time to stop rewarding the new socialist-facist Republicans by not voting for them. Maybe with a few losses and discontent, Compassionate Conservativism will die.

Post 24

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 5:29pm

"Mr. Bisno, you give capitalists a bad name.."

Excuse me? Have you any actual substantiation for this? Do you even know the first thing about me? Or do you simply buy into the cult-of-Linz party line that minor typographical aberrations are a to be the defining feature of someone's character, on par with one's epistemology? Perhaps you and your friend in New Zealand should come up with actual analyses of things instead of trying to see who can best come across as an arrested adolescent, looking for excuses to fling insults instead of arguments or ideas to think about.

Post 25

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 6:21pm

Okay, I propose that SOLOists invent some method of visually identifying sarcasm and tone in writing.

Robert B., I am not sure, but I believe David made a funny. I usually miss them myself, but I actually had quite a chuckle at the pun he had made on the word capitalist.

Now, if your reaction is a joke response, well then, it's all way over my head.

-Elizabeth

Post 26

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 6:46pm

heh heh, i thought the same thing elizabeth.

btw, regarding text-sarcasm identifiers, i refer you to my solo forum yahoo post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SOLO_forum/message/18101

: p
eli

Post 27

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 6:57pm

David, Bobby Bisno,

Mr. Bisno, you give capitalists a bad name...

"A-pun my word," that was a great put-down. The pedantic Mr. Bisno swallowed it whole. That was delightful. I have great doubts about the intelligence (or stability) of anyone who cannot detect when their leg is being pulled.

(For your enlightenment, Mr. Bisno, "capitalists" are those who use "capitals," ha, ha, ha, ha! Oh, yes, by the way, David lives in Spain. Oh, ha, ha, ha!)

Regi

Post 28

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 7:01pm

Elizabeth,

Well, I'm a little annoyed you posted your response to the pedantic Mr. Bisno before I did. The swiftness of youth, I suppose. Well, enjoy it while you can, it doesn't last for ever, (damn!).

Regi

Post 29

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 10:50pm

phew- thanks Elizabeth, Eli (oops, eli), and Regi- I had a plummeting sensation there for a few seconds that I had committed the worst of all possible crimes- an attempt at wit that nobody gets!

Mr. Bisno, once you've calmed down, please accept my apologies for the unintended character slur.

For what it's worth though, I agree 100% with those who criticise shift-key-laziness.

They should be made to read Mein Kampf typeset in upper case.

Capital punishment.

(groan)

Post 30

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 9:52am

Elizabeth: Gotcha. But the artificiality of candidates bothers me, too. If they were all a bit more honest about how both of their feet touch the ground every morning, about how they put their pants on one leg at a time, then they wouldn't be humiliated when they make a mistake, and wouldn't be compelled to cover up what is in the range of normal human behavior. Imagine how many political careers have been ruined because, God-forbid, people were sexually active. I promise, even the enlightened-appearing politicians and intelligensia have bad days, snap at their staff, make mistakes, and maybe have done an unsavory thing or two in their past. I am immediately suspicious of those who claim not to--they aren't real people, or they aren't being honest. I don't trust people who bend over backwards to assure me that I should buy their version of something because of their impressiveness or credentials. Peacocks are often buffoons with bright feathers.

Pamela: Greetings from up over (you know, the opposite of down under...). You are correct in that no one here is 'forced' to vote. But choosing the lesser of two evils amounts to deciding between two candidates neither of whom you are particularly impressed with. You pick the one who will do the most good and least damage. It IS in a person's rational self-interest to vote for the lesser of two evils. I dispute the applicability of your Atlas Shrugged analogy to voting in Presidential elections--because someone is going to be voted in whether I vote or not. Even though I am unhappy with the choice, it is still pro-life for me to choose the guy who will help me the most and hurt me the least. Moving to Galt's Gulch is not an option, because my life is not a work of fiction.

Post 31

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 1:08pm

Hey Scott! I didn't mean to imply I wanted a perfect president. Heck, have all the affairs you want. Smoke marijuana occasionally if you want. I don't think they impact the job someone does. I don't even care if we have a president that likes to drink. It's the idea that someone is a people's man, a man's man, and his most memorable quality is that I could have a beer with him without feeling uncomfortable, that I think is scary. I'd gladly go and have a beer with Clinton, (all politics & agendas aside) but I still think the man knows just a bit more than me. With Bush on the other hand, I'm not as confident. He really is just an average Joe who had some connections and charisma and made it into the White House.

Also in response to Pamela's thought that we shouldn't complain because we can vote for whoever we want, I do tend to disagree. True you could vote for your candidate Bob who is your perfect idea of President, but then you waste your vote. The two major parties are still the leaders here, and if you don't want to waste your vote, you vote for the lesser of two evils. You can try to get a great, objectivist guy to run for president, but you'd likely lose. Then you're back where you started. It takes a while to get someone in there.

When I was a bit more naive, I didn't understand how dictators got into power. I always thought the people outnumbered the elite, they could overthrow them. Or just vote someone else in. Now I realize it's not always that easy.

-Elizabeth

Post 32

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 1:36am

Hi Scott from "up over" (I haven't heard that one before - I like it!)
As I did say, if you actually perceive someone to be a value, then fine, go ahead and vote for them. But the majority of political parties are a disvalue, because they all to varying degrees act to remove our liberties and property. Look at how progressive the road to tyranny has been over the last 50 years, and politicians of all colours have played a part.

As a friend of mine once said "The problem with elections is, no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in".

The point is, there is nothing to choose between any of them, and the best protest is to publicly refuse to vote and say why. Just dream for a moment that after a few years you got enough ground swell to really make an impact, and large numbers of people refused to vote until ALL political parties started behaving in a more morally acceptable way.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what other people do, nor that someone will get in anyway; it matters only what you do, even if you are the only one doing it. That's how I see it anyway.

Elizabeth: I think you have slightly misunderstood me. I didn't say you "shouldn't complain because you can vote for whoever you want", I can vote for whoever I want too. I said, I thought that voting for the lesser of two evils is not what Objectivism is about, because it is in effect trying to compromise with the morally obscene. All these guys are trying to take away our liberty and property. Although I am not a heavily Randian Objectivist, I think she put it pretty well in her article about whether one should compromise. I guess it depends as Scott put in, on how you see your self-interest, which can honestly be viewed in several different ways.
Cass

Post 33

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:28am

eh, i have never voted, since i've never known a candidate worth voting for.

i too dislike the idea of trying to pick the lesser of two evils.

however, i see the motivation of those who do vote among evil choices:

if one man offers to steal your car, and another offers to steal your house, and you can have some part of deciding which gets to have his way, you may choose the first man.

or better yet: if one man offers to steal your car, and another offers to kill your family, and you know that exactly one of them will succeed, you may want to vote for the first man.

my point is only that, in voting for the lesser of two evils, many people (? i've done no research!) are not trying to elevate these villains into power: they are trying to minimize the harm that may come to themselves.

i will continue to not vote, unless we have a candidate that is so terribly evil, that his winning is too horrible to contemplate, and i almost have to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

or better yet, if we have a good candidate.

: )
eli

Post 34

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 7:41am

Hi eli (Sorry, an old fashioned rigid education has me unable to avoid Capitals and punctuation!);
I too can see "why" most people pick the man who offers to steal their car over the one stealing their house. It's called Appeasement. "Perhaps, if I go along with this one, I'll be protected from that one, and I won't get so badly hurt". Basically.
It's just that, in the long run, you are still telling a thief, " it's ok to steal from me, as long as you only steal a bit". In other words, I'll accept the Principle of theft, and just argue the degrees. Theft is wrong, no matter if its only a $2 trinket. And no-one should have to choose between two wrongs, the very idea of such a choice is a moral fallacy. There is no such thing, logically speaking, as a moral basis of a choice between 2 no-choices. "Hey kid, which do you want, Hemlock (it's quick and painless) or Cyanide (it's quick but looks awful)." which, in my book, is what voting the "lesser of two evils" amounts to. But of course, I realise I'm taking the long view - over decades. But just imagine, if someone started this movement 50 years ago, where we might be now?!

Post 35

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 9:32am

well, as to the issue of degrees..

suppose one person says he'll kill your family, and the other says he'll steal your $2 trincket, and 3 people get to vote on which one is permitted to act in such a way.

would you abstain?

if you know that harm is going to come to you, and your goal in life is happiness, then it makes sense to minimize that harm.

i don't see voting as appeasement. they aren't trying to bribe the candidate into not hurting them. they are merely trying to choose the one that says he'll harm them less.

if it seems short ranged, condsider that they may simply try to minimize the destruction of freedom, until a real solution presents itself (or they come up with one themselves).

i'm not sure which method is best. for now, i'll stick with not voting for evil men. especially since they seem indistinguishably evil to me.

Post 36

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 5:04pm