About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, April 13, 2012 - 8:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed Hudgins,

You earlier promoted Mitt Romney, and do not mention Ron Paul now.  Why? :p  I see in this video: http://www.atlassociety.org/objectivist-guide-evaluating-candidates that you had good things to say about him.  You criticized that Ron Paul was not successful introducing legislature to repeal spending etc, but I'd say he did a good job voting no.  To be honest you must admit that if he were to submit legistlature, it would not ever pass, simply because he is so far towards libertarian from the mainstream politician.  One excellent accomplishment of his was the partial edit of the Federal Reserve.  In light of that the Federal Reserve is our biggest threat to liberty, I think this is a pretty significant and noteworthy success.

Yes Romney has been successful in his leadership, but he has done some pretty crappy things like promoting that individuals should be forced to get medical insurance, and forcing medical insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions.  Surely Romney is not going to do anything about the Federal Reserve.

I loved the part where you discussed what drives the candidates, what they are passionate about.  You were spot on, Romney: wants to sit in the manager's chair, Obama: wants forced redistribution to equalize us in depravity, Santorum: wants to clense the devil from us and enforce Christian ethic in people's private lives, Newt: wants to try his ideas for fun, make jokes, and pander, Ron Paul: wants liberty.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, April 13, 2012 - 9:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean - I'm not sure where it is that I promote Mitt Romney. In this piece I simply mention that the elements of the religious right are giving him grief for being a Mormon. And I think Romney would be better than Obama, but this isn't to say that I'm uncritical of him.

Yes, I've said good things about Ron Paul. And yes, I'm glad Ron Paul voted against a lot of bad stuff that many others, including Republicans, voted for. But successful presidents must be able to build coalitions to support their legislative agendas. Reagan, for example, built on the work of Jack Kemp to cut taxes.

I agree, and have said so, that Ron Paul has been alone in highlighting the destructive policies of the Fed and now has focused the attention of others on the need for an audit (and I hope a lot more). And I hope that the Ron Paul supporters will become a stronger force in the Republican Party, at least offsetting the adverse effect of Rick Santorum's influence. Watch for my future pieces on this topic!

Cheers!

Post 2

Friday, April 13, 2012 - 11:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is what I was referring to, you gave him less support than I incorrectly remembered:
Ed Wrote (http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/3095.shtml#2):
I think that Romney, while not a principled conservative or libertarian, knows his party base and knows the bad reputations of Bush 1 and 2 among most Republicans. Thus I think he'd hold down taxes and spending. Most important, he knows he needs to get the economy going so he'll focus on deregulation and undoing the restrictions that Obama has been placing on the economy. Occasionally, pragmatists actually try to do what works!
I think Mitt Romney's passion is to sit in the manager's chair.  Not specifically to do anything.  Just to be able to sit there, and allow other people to do things.  He will say whatever he things will cause people to vote for him.  He will say whatever placates the populous, and do what his special interest group friends ask him to do.  Then during his presidency and future, he plans for his corrupt friends in Washington to shower him with gifts.  You might be right that he will be told that he needs to reduce taxes, spending, and regulations in order to be re-elected.  That could give us four better years than the case of Obama.

I'm actually somewhat afraid for Ron Paul to be elected.  We are headed towards an inevitable significant downturn in our economy as well as I can predict, and I'd really hate to see Austrian economics be blamed for the Fed's Keynesian past.  I'd rather see a libertarian win after we hit bottom.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Monday, April 16, 2012 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean:

That is exactly the musical chairs/train wreck politics I think both parties have been embracing...for decades.

I think this economic train wreck was cast in concrete decades ago. Sure, at any point, responsible adults could have advocated dynamiting the layers of concrete and avoiding the coming wreck, but what was humanly possible was not politically possible, given the nature of our national political parties, which is, the nature of a spoiled child given the keys to a candy store.

With every passing year, the layers of concrete got thicker and more intransigent; the required character to avert the coming wreck faded further and further into the far horizon. never to be seen again, and so, it became full blown train wreck politics, where contempt has replaced character. I think 1980 might have been the last chance to painlessly readjust course-- when the Boomers were just entering their earnings years. Too late now, the fleecing of an entire already surplus paying generation is long complete.

Here is the weasel calculus; is it better to be out of power when the train undeniably wrecks, to blame the other party, or is the tag team nature of this C.F. sufficient to permit the then current party in power to play the 'we inherited' speech endlessly, and claim that the solution is to now give that party absolute power?

They are both weasels, because on average, we're average.

#1 willing lender to the treasury has been the SS Trust Fund for decades -- not China. That #1 willing lender is officially gone, no longer absorbing US debt.

#2 is in the driver seat now, the world is moving towards the Yuan as we speak, and neither party over here is making much noise pointing that out, just like the terrified leaders in any failing tribal C.F.

The radical left sees opportunity in this train wreck-- a nation in pain screaming out 'we don't care how, just fix it!' And God help us, nobody knows what the radical right sees in any of this, except the chance to cling to the gig for 15 minutes longer and carve carcass, while trying to avoid being carved for the 15 minutes of going nowhere noise the left wants to try.

It's not going to be pretty, and laughing at North Korea hurling rocket junk into the sea does not drown out the sound of China going to the moon while we watch our Chevy Volts go unsold by the thousands.

Things we could do that we will never do:

1] Transition SS from defined benefit to defined contribution. If we'd have done that 30 years ago, then it could have been done gradually over time. Today, the issue is so severe and immediate that in order to be effective, this transition would be drastic. So, never going to happen. Instead, our pols will just ramp up what they've already been doing, which is, print money and destroy the US dollar even more, gambling that the electorate they have contempt for will largely not understand what is going on. They will play the same tired old 'we inherited this mess' speech and print away.

2] Cut the over head of government back to JFK's level of spending, adjusted for population and inflation. (1.5T/yr) Not going to happen, when the populace accepts the simple printing of money.

The infestation in DC is not going to go away. It will cling to power until its fingers bleed, even if that means the nation's ass bleeds. That is what is going to happen.

The infestation in DC will never voluntarily devolve back to being state plumbers, because being state emperors pays much better. It is simple human nature.


(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/16, 8:48am)


Post 4

Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Disconnected snippets on Jefferson

Glenn Beck was interviewing a guy who just wrote a book called "The Jefferson Lies" or something very much like that. I didn't catch the guy's name but he said some interesting things. Jefferson edited the Holy Bible twice: once to make a short ('the Gospels') book for Native Americans to read, and another time to capture the moral teachings of the Bible. Also, he apparently didn't have sex with his slaves -- at least he didn't father any children with them. In 1998, there was a story about DNA evidence in the supposed "Jefferson affair". The story claimed to prove he fathered kids with his slaves. A little-known retraction occurred about a month later, though. Later DNA evidence -- or reinterpretation of DNA evidence -- actually disproves that he fathered any children with slaves.

Interesting stuff. I'll probably buy the book.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/18, 11:06am)


Post 5

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 3:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
http://www.amazon.com/The-Jefferson-Lies-Exposing-Believed/dp/1595554599/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335866421&sr=1-1

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the author's name is Barton. He has an agenda which is to prove that Jefferson was a deeply religious Christian - along with all the other founding fathers. I'm glad that he is disproving that absurd DNA claim who's only purpose was to smear Jefferson, but I don't really trust Barton that far.

He probably doesn't mention that getting the Indians to subscribe to, and practice the same things as the colonialists was his attempt to join the two peoples so that the Indians would not suffer a violent clash, as would otherwise be inevitable (he corresponded with others describing that plan. Jefferson was aware that those Indians that did not abandon their old culture and join with the colonists - adopting all the colonial ways of being, would eventually be wiped out - the more civilized culture would win at the cost of the people trying to cling to their old ways.) This was an example of Jefferson hoping to avoid wars and to save the Indians politically, not an attempt to evangelize or engage in Christian works.

And, almost everyone was religious to a greater degree back then... it was before Darwin, before Science had as strong a foothold as it does today.

Post 7

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 - 2:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Thanks for the link.


And Steve,

Great points.


Ed


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.