RoR: Forum

Translation:
Everyone do as I say.

:-)

In other words, it's a JAFP ("just another fascist platitude").

Ed

Post 1

Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - 7:56pm

Well said Ed.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 3:13am

Thanks, John.

Ed

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 7:31am

And then there was this:

The world's hopes rest with America's future; America's hopes rest with us. So let us go forward to create our world of tomorrow in faith, in unity, and in love.

No, wait .... that was Reagan's State of the Union Address in 1986.

Post 4

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 7:51am

Glenn,

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but -- in the case that you are -- Obama might say we should include faith, unity, and love; but Obama would not ever say that the whole world's hopes rest with America's future.

He doesn't actually understand the moral significance of the American experiment. He said that we do "big things" (in the name of the American dream), but he doesn't understand -- and his actions prove that this is so -- he doesn't understand the sanctity of unfettered individual rights.

Ed

Post 5

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 8:19am

Ed,
Pundits on both sides have described Obama's speech as "Reagan-esque". I just thought I'd give an example for comparison. You picked on one example from the SOTU address ("move forward as one nation") and I tried to show that Reagan used a similar line. In fact, you can probably find a similar sentiment in just about all of the SOTU addresses in modern times.

You said:

"he doesn't understand the sanctity of unfettered individual rights."

Can you name one modern politician of any significance who did or does?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 6

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 8:31am

Transcript of BO's speech.

It included this gem:

As Robert Kennedy told us, "The future is not a gift. It is an achievement."

which makes about as much sense as Noam Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

Post 7

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 8:43am

This stuff is just tiresome. If you were given the choice between Obama and Reagan, is there any question what any freedom loving individual would choose? Are we going to start a debate on RoR again over which politician fits some definition of a Platonic Ideal, or that all politicians are morally equivalent because they don't fit this impossible standard? I'm not purporting one ought to elevate Reagan as an ideal, but I don't delude myself into thinking Reagan is not any better than Obama.
The problem I've seen quite frequently is the irrational Platonic Ideal standard for measuring a politician's worth. Yet no one can fit your idea of the perfect politician other than yourself. You can barely find any two libertarians or objectivists to agree with each other on everything, now we're going to say that there is no difference whatsoever between any modern politicians? Why should this be taken seriously at all? Don't get me wrong, I sympathize and agree with the criticism that most politicians are simply statists in various forms, but I don't think it's rational at all to think they are all equally statist.

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/26, 8:44am)

Post 8

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 9:43am

Try to see the upside of this. His statements are a reaction to the midterm elections. Before, it was "we're going to steamroll right over you" and now it's "let's work together, guys!".

Post 9

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 10:24am

Glenn,

In keeping with John's take on the matter (with which I agree), here are 39 politicians who sided with the US Constitution (rather than with Obama's thugocracy) in the last 10 key votes:

1) Akin
2) Barrasso
3) Broun
4) Brownback
5) Bunning
6) Burr
7) Campbell
8) Chaffetz
9) Chambliss
10) Coburn
11) Corker
12) Cornyn
13) Crapo
14) DeMint
15) Duncan
16) Ensign
17) Enzi
18) Flake
19) Gingrey
20) Grassley
21) Graves, S.
22) Hatch
23) Hutchison
24) Inhofe
25) Isakson
26) Kyl
27) Linder
28) McCain
29) Moran, Jerry
30) Paul [Ron has never scored less than 100% on this 'pro-constitution' index]
31) Risch
32) Roberts
33) Rohrabacher
34) Sessions, J.
35) Shelby
36) Thune
37) Tiahrt
38) Vitter
39) Wicker

Ed

Reference:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/Freedom_Index_111-4.pdf

Post 10

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 10:49am

OK, Ed.
If you equate "understand the sanctity of unfettered individual rights" with "adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements", which is what the "Freedom Index" is based on, then I agree with you.

I also agree with John. But, I also find the constant sniping at Obama to be "tiresome". Why don't we all just agree that he's a scum-sucking Marxist with nothing of any value to say or contribute, and move on to more interesting topics?

Post 11

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 10:56am

Because I want to keep talking about how much he's a scum-sucking Marxist. It's my therapy, don't take that away from me! :)

Post 12

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 11:13am

Until the main-stream media reports his scum-sucking Marxist nature to the public, it is up to us to keep poking at it - even if only to one another. (Sorry, Glenn, but this might be going on for a while - especially as we roll into the campaign season. :-)

Post 13

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 3:07pm

Guys,

You know, when you guys keep on referring to Obama as a scum-sucking Marxist, it gets repetitive to the point where it might actually lose its potential value.

Calling him a scum-sucking Marxist, over and over again, could -- in time -- prove counterproductive. There should be some kind of rule made in order to prevent the overuse of the phrase: "Obama is a scum-sucking Marxist." I was thinking of a rule which reads: "You shouldn't call Obama a scum-sucking Marxist." Or perhaps one which states: "If you think that Obama is a scum-sucking Marxist, then you should bite your tongue about that." Or perhaps this one: "Obama may be a scum-sucking Marxist, but we should not engage in numerous repetition of that phrase; if the phrase (i.e., the phrase: 'Obama is a scum-sucking Marxist') comes up in conversation, then politely let the issue pass without repeating, especially in the very same words, that 'Obama is a scum-sucking Marxist.'"

Anyway, that's my take on the matter.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/26, 3:08pm)

Post 14

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 3:31pm

Lol, more snipes at Obama. Listen to these pathetic Keynesian journalists cheer-lead for Obama and Bernake while Swiss investor Marc Faber puts these Keynesian charlatans in their place.

Post 15

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 3:38pm

I don't know how scum sucking literally and technically works, but it must be be very unpleasant for the exponent.

Sam

Post 16

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 4:18pm

Well, Sam, if you want to get picky, he isn't really a scum-sucking Marxist. He's a scum-sucking socialist.

Marxists want a revolution - a violent overthrow of the existing government. But they are just one kind of socialist. The far-left Progressives want a "transformation" to achieve their socialists ends. Most of them lie and pretend that they favor free-enterprise, claiming they just want some regulations to prevent this or that evil coming from unfettered capitalism.

The "scum-sucking" is a metaphor that has to do with willingness to lie and cheat and to take the lowest of ethical paths to reach his ends as contrasted with those socialists like Senator Bernie Saunders or Representative Dennis Kucinich who openly and honestly admit that they are socialists and advocate their transformations out in the open - making them dumber-than-bricks socialists.

Post 17

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 11:43pm

Calling Obama's lame excuses for speeches as "Reagan-esque" is like trying to defend George Lucas as a cinematic genius: massively insulting to anyone who has any taste or standards whatsoever.

Post 18

Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 8:55am