I followed the links. They all seem like stuff mindlessly slamming the president, but I will read his book. I've never read any books he wrote.

I read Acts of Faith by Eboo Patel a few years back. I believe Patel is friends with Obama, and their writing style, even in that one sentence is similar. Patel talks about seeking out what he calls supporters of group identity politics and then realizing that was misguided.

I plan to dream Dreams from My Father. I can't comment on the quote until I've read it.

"They are both evil, as they both enforce their views onto others through the use of force. "
Yes. Moreover, the two issues you mentioned them differing on, religion and gender expression, are not affected by gov't policy. People won't stop going to church or express gender differently depending on which party is in charge. It's a sham.

http://thefinancialphysician.com/2013/05...

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Oba...

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/moderate...

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/murd...

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," Obama wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."


After college, Obama states lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections...

In my opinion, today's Democrats and today's Republicans are almost the same. They are both socialists, with Republicans hanging on to religion and the Democrats hanging on to "alternative" families and gender redistribution. They are both evil, as they both enforce their views onto others through the use of force. Obama, however, is a special case, as I believe that he not only hates this country, but is doing everything in his power to damage it. In any other country, he would have been tried for treason.

I don't know him or even know anyone who knows him, so I can't know if he has a Toohey character. He comes off well on TV, but so would Toohey.

All this stuff about him being Marxist, sadistic about hurting people with bad policies, and thinking no one's stuff is legitimately earned are fabrications from whole cloth.

I really don't know about the claim of him having Toohey-like traits. People with those traits are sometimes drawn to positions of authority or doling out alms. I hope you're wrong.

"But through their votes, these people affect all of us, through the force of arms of the government."
Yes. I agree with everything you said in this last comment except for the parts pinning it on Democrats. I see no difference at all on these issues between Ds and Rs. Ds come off slightly better, but I think that's just b/c they're targetting their BS to an urban audience.

Ditto a hundred times+1

Good Points. I enjoyed reading your comments. We see things very similarly. +1

I don't think statism mixes easily with Objectivism at all. I think statism flows freely from people who were not raised under a philosophy that values rationality, be that Objectivism or otherwise. Statism then crushes Objectivism every time its cells divide, like a slow but untreatable cancer.

If you read past threads, the Gulch has had threads on all of those topics.

As for the name-calling, calling Obama a socialist is being too kind to him. He is a naked Marxist. As for the evil villain part, just look at his smirk any time he intentionally pokes producers in the eyes. He gets a perverse joy out of bringing producers down. The Ellsworth Toohey comparison is as close as you are likely to get.

As for his budget, our $ is not ours, according to him. Such money was not earned legitimately, according to him. I resent his demonization of my morals and values. In his mind, good is evil, and evil is good.

[The question I still ask myself is this man stupid or are his actions on purpose. I believe it is on purpose.]

I concur. It's common to hear people say, and even to say myself, "That stupid piece of 5h1t! Is he out of his mind?!" That's just a slightly lazy but nevertheless ubiquitous usage of English. There are two choices when listening to Obama! and other collectivists absurd utterances. 1) They are possessed of an unnaturally low IQ, or 2) They know full well the implications of what they said but they're evil. There must be some 1.5) They truly believe what they say but don't understand the implications.

The 1's are sad but they're only dangerous when they vote or breed. The 2's are always dangerous and should be dealt with like all evil is dealt with. The 1.5's are nearly as dangerous as the 2's, they're just without the diabolical level of evil. I'm not sure what to do about the 1.5's.

[It’s difficult to get elected to the Presidency being stupid,]

It's not as hard as it should be. I give you G. Bush the lesser. I think he was actually pretty dumb. I give you Dan Quayle, again, actually pretty dumb. I give you Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin, both of whom I believe are too dumb to be allowed to live alone. Given the tools and the opportunity they'd be eligible for the Darwin Award.

[therefore I believe it is intentional based on his philosophy growing up, his associations with known communists, and his Islamic background.]

Yes. I believe that his upbringing left him an extremely bitter, jealous racist who was able to take advantage of the systems put in place by self-loathing, guilt-ridden middle-class white guys to promote himself into the metaphoric stratosphere. He's very skilled at hiding his true nature, like a sociopath. He was also lucky to have met a woman who was just much a bitter, jealous racist but who also possessed the skills to get actual jobs that paid her gobs of money.

Rex_Little, please read down to my (jbrenner's) comments to Circuit Guy. Search this thread for the word "undermine". Yes, Bush was a terrible master, but Obama is a dictator of the first order.

You might be in for a bit of a surprise, this "her" has a shaved head and a beard.

My favorite answer is Eudaimonia's. It's simultaneously sincere and humorous, humorous because it answers the original question with the feigned innocence of a slight misinterpretation of the question - and I join her wholeheartedly.

My not funny answer is, "Sure, if they display the same level of cognitive dissonance that most of society seems to display these days." You can have a short conversation with nearly any person and discover two ideas/issues/concepts that are in direct conflict with each other but which the person deeply believes.

One more point - I have met die hard Democrats who are in fact very hard and honest workers themselves and are not moochers. But they support government enforced re-distribution because they believe that the world is not fair and someone in power needs to make it fair. Of course, that is a ridiculous notion - maybe the world is unfair - who's to decide and using what reference? The world is the world; get used to it. But through their votes, these people affect all of us, through the force of arms of the government. They have no knowledge of the subject, no education in the field, yet they take it upon themselves to be experts. What if I were a professor of literature and voted on how you needed to design an electronics circuit? And if I rallied my entire literature class to vote on that circuit? Would that make sense? In the name of fairness, I suppose. Just because one can yabbety yab on economics issues hardly makes him and expert, yet that yabbety yabber controls our lives. For the next Constitution, I think that division of labor criteria need to be incorporated, lest we end up with the same failure.

I found when watching the likes of NBC and MSNBC etc. that using a sippy cup helps reduce choking episodes.

I agree with your position. I too am a Christian and do not subscribe to Rand's beliefs here. But on most everything else especially her position on capitalism and the views of the founding fathers, I am in her camp. When you mention that quote, I am amazed at how Obama in so many respects is the anti-Rand. He has taken so many Atlas Shrugged concepts and completely reversed them. Things like Obama's "My Brother's Keeper" program just to name one. These issue give us a clear understanding about what's in his mind and what I see I do not like.

If dedicated you mean a believer of Ayn's opinions I don't think so. If you read Atlas Shrugged on page 136 there is a comment made "you didn't build that." It harks back to what Obama stated in 2012. He is on the wrong side of Ayn Rand. Now to be fair, I am a Christian, so I do part ways with Rand's opinion on religion, but to me her important beliefs center on free market capitalism and personal freedom. Obama hates capitalism, he resents those who have been successful and he is a disgrace to this country. He is trying to control our lives with Obama Care and is punishing those who don't have it by fining them. He is threat to freedom and capitalism.

Yes...with my tax dollars...as he rots in a prison cell for releasing 5 terrorists in exchange for a deserter.

I don't blame the college students who voted for the community organizer, but I do blame their professors.

While true, the questions asks if a dedicated gulch member could support Obama. Most African Americans are not gulch members. My opinion is that gulch members value reason and intellect and if one uses his brain it is difficult to support Obama because he stands against everything a gulch member stands for.

Americans yes. But a true dedicated member of the gulch could have seen through the bs and could probably not in my opinion support obama assuming they use their brain.

+1 ditto Thank you for your service and comments

Sure you can. Because it would be my choice to and not anyone else's choice. That doers not mean the decision is correct but that I chose.

I took the same oath which BHO took, when I was
commissioned into the usaf. . . I have behaved
accordingly. . he has not, as he has violated the
constitution frequently during his tenure. . apparently,
his university study of the constitution was aimed
at its circumvention. . . he has succeeded.

the man is a traitor. . I wish that he would retire
to a south pacific island with a golf course and
no communication with the world whatsoever. -- j