Zebra_Cakes
Woodpecker
Brian said:
Obama leads VA by almost 5 points...
Obama leads in FL by 1 point...
And lastly, Obama leads in ALL state polls, outside Rasmussen in Ohio by about 5 points...
A response to Pres. Obama's swipe at Rand
- Thread starter vinman
- Start date
- Status
Obama leads VA by almost 5 points...
Obama leads in FL by 1 point...
And lastly, Obama leads in ALL state polls, outside Rasmussen in Ohio by about 5 points...
speakeasy said:
But... but.. Romney is a big business man, he has made himself fabulously wealthy. He will be good for the economy. He knows how to trickle down stuff. How can they endorse Obama, who isn't qualified to be dog catcher, over one of the business titans of the century? :huh:
cat_a_clysm
Robin
Just tagging this thread to laugh after the election is over. Funny how each side sees what it wants to see. I can get -not- liking Romney because he's a wall street guy but I don't see how any of you guys can actually support Obama given that he is the anti-masculinity candidate telling us that fat, flip flop wearing, vapid whores and aging spinster cat ladies are superior to men.
cat_a_clysm said:
Romney was a male cheerleader.
That alone is reason not to like him.
I mean, do you like male cheerleaders?
Menace said:
As a rule, yes. But she's a particularly ugly woman who's been obsessed with philosophy and writing since before puberty. I'm sure she wouldn't have ever become famous if her Objectivist philosophy didn't align with corporate desires to deregulate the world, but that doesn't take away any of her wisdom promoting personal hapiness.
ManAbout said:
man is he ever in shit if Romney wins
christpuncher said:
she got this bit right:
porscheguy
Ostrich
You are aware that many prominent feminists have been Jewish women?megatron said:
Gloria Steinem
Andrea Dworkin AKA "all men are rapists."
and many more.
gringochileno
Pelican
Funny article. The best line is "no professional philosopher in half a century has been able to [invalidate Rand's philosophy]." Of course nobody with more than the most cursory background in philosophy needs be told how delusional that statement is given that Rand's arguments have at least virtually zero, and possibly exactly zero defenders among academic philosophers, even those who are sympathetic to many of her ethical or political views (Nozick, Scruton, Oakeshott, etc). This is not without good reason. Just about every one of her major claims is either a tautology ("A is A"), a non-sequitur ("I have interests, therefore the only morally relevant consideration is to further my own interests"), or outright psychotic ("whether other people's lives go well or badly has no moral relevance whatsoever unless it affects my interests").
Most people who are initially enamored by Rand's "philosophy" eventually succumb to the massive cognitive dissonance required in order to ignore the massive holes in her pseudo-logic and to remain committed to the view that caring about other people is immoral. That's why Objectivism has always been, and always will be predominant among a minority of high school students who almost always stop being Objectivists within a few years' time.
Also, since this has apparently become yet another thread about the Presidential election (God I can't wait until it's over), I really can't see any reason at all to think that Obama isn't the overwhelming favorite at this point. You know your side is losing when you see people resorting to arguing that the polls are all wrong.
Most people who are initially enamored by Rand's "philosophy" eventually succumb to the massive cognitive dissonance required in order to ignore the massive holes in her pseudo-logic and to remain committed to the view that caring about other people is immoral. That's why Objectivism has always been, and always will be predominant among a minority of high school students who almost always stop being Objectivists within a few years' time.
Also, since this has apparently become yet another thread about the Presidential election (God I can't wait until it's over), I really can't see any reason at all to think that Obama isn't the overwhelming favorite at this point. You know your side is losing when you see people resorting to arguing that the polls are all wrong.
@ Gringo. Agree more or less with your assessment.
Check out this article, though: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic"
I also read this yesterday: 538 is basically a Monte Carlo simulation
I would be betting on an Obama win simply because InTrades has him at +65%, but those two articles articulate the reason why I'm still uncertain of an Obama victory.
Check out this article, though: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic"
I also read this yesterday: 538 is basically a Monte Carlo simulation
I would be betting on an Obama win simply because InTrades has him at +65%, but those two articles articulate the reason why I'm still uncertain of an Obama victory.
Sonsowey said:
- Status