Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Snoogoo 6 years, 11 months ago
    Didn't we go over this already?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 6 years, 11 months ago
      yes and the consensus as far as I know was a resounding NO. he is a bump on a log. so a tree trunk must now be the see in from of the desk used by the president.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by woodlema 6 years, 11 months ago
      Not really, since the previous topic used the word "Dedicated Member" in the question. This question implied simply a resident, not a Dedicated member of the Gulch.

      Much like a question does a person have to be Jewish to live in Jerusalem or Israel?

      Phraseology is very important.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Snoogoo 6 years, 11 months ago
        Would a resident supporting Obama be able to honestly take the oath? Dagny couldn't quite let go of her business yet.. she hadn't shrugged so she could no longer be there. Staying in the Gulch for her would have been a contradiction. A resident of the Gulch supporting Obama would be living a lie. If not, then what good is the principle? I think the comparison to Israel is false. Israel is a nation governed by laws. There is no rule or principle that states you must be Jewish to live there, but it still remains a nation with borders, a military, etc. Excluding people by ethnicity or religion is completely arbitrary. However, the Gulch has a guiding principle to which all residents must recognize and live by. If they don't then you no longer have a Gulch so what is the point?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by woodlema 6 years, 11 months ago
          Good point, and based on that the answer is no, assuming you had to take that oath to be a resident. Then is it a temporary resident or permanent resident?

          Perhaps then the question Dennis55 should have asked would be, "Can a Visitor to the Gulch be a supporter of Obama?"
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 6 years, 11 months ago
    How in the h--l could that be possible?! Unless, of
    course, one had some idea that the country had to
    have a total collapse in order to return to freedom,
    similar to the situation in "Atlas Shrugged". But
    even then, Galt did not actively support statist
    policies, just got others, along with himself, to
    leave the country to its fate. Anyway, the situ-
    ation is not that desperate yet. No; in fact,h--l,
    No!! Obama is a statist who is trying to obliter-
    ate private property and individual rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 6 years, 11 months ago
    Could they, sure they could do anything. However I would offer that if they did support any socialist agenda, then they would no longer be gulch residents, by their choice through their actions.

    It is only by choosing to protect the smallest minority, the individual that one can be a gulch resident. This requires that the person make a choice to use the tools available to them to protect individual rights within a society and to use their mind to identify the best way to do so.

    Supporting Obama requires that you use your mind to support the ideal of "To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability." Support of such an ideal is contrary and opposite to the individual and thus impossible for one to do so and continue to live in "the gulch"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 6 years, 11 months ago
      Actually, "To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability" is just a motto. Osama's and the despots before him. In reality, it is "steal as much as you can from as many as you can." And that suits a lot of people quite well...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago
    Whoaaa, dennis55 here--objectivist to the core. I of course cannot support this president. I don't know who could-objectivist or not.....I was merely trying to respond to a similar question. But while I'm on the subject, I'm not seeing too many objectivist/libertarian choices out there. Maybe we will get what they ask for. The government subsidized voter is s crewing us over in Illinois-for the most part.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 6 years, 11 months ago
    Obama is an admitted collectivist (spread the wealth) so it would require major cognitive dissonance for an Objectivist to support him or his agenda. It is the collectivist notion that human ingenuity is the property of the state not the individual as a result the importance of the individual to society is marginalized. I can't imagine any ideology that is more in conflict with Objectivism than that espoused by President Obama.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tragicview 6 years, 11 months ago
    Anyone can choose to lie, and Obama is a patent pathological liar who freely lies to justify his ends. However, Rand put lying this way: "People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. But what I've learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication because one surrenders one's reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one's master, condemning oneself to faking reality." -Henry Rearden.

    Hence a true Gulch resident, as an Objectivist, cannot support a habitual liar like Obama who fakes reality in nearly every waking moment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dougthorburn 6 years, 11 months ago
    Yes. After all, if it weren't for O'Bumbo we wouldn't have Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and a host of other libertarian-leaning politicians. Nor would countless a-political Americans have become acquainted with libertarian ideas over the last six years. Now, we have a chance at redemption.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 6 years, 11 months ago
    are there some here who would say that
    a Gulch resident must not support Christianity?

    is this question parallel to the one above,
    in any significant ways? -- j

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 6 years, 11 months ago
      It depends on what you mean by Christianity. If it's the real one as preached and practiced through the dark and middle ages, and sometimes in that form still today, than yes, it's just as bad. But if it's modern 'Christian' culture thoroughly watered down by the secularism since the Enlightenment and formed by and practiced as in fact American individualism it's possible to see how someone could be confused and still actually endorse the values of the Gulch if he doesn't actually take Christian mysticism and duty seriously, It's not Ayn Rand's philosophy because it corrupts it and contradicts it at the root, but it can be more civilization and individualism than most of what else is going on today. Honesty will sort it out one way or the other as an individual learns.

      But for Obama, there is only one version: him. If you know what he's doing and saying you can't confuse it with the Gulch.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnpe1 6 years, 11 months ago
        I adore your response, ewv;;; the kindness and
        direct-to-individual sense of discovery of natural
        law which have evolved from Jesus' teachings
        appear to be positives, to me. . Thank You. -- j

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 6 years, 11 months ago
    YES!!!
    Resident:
    1a : living in a place for some length of time :
    Here is why.

    A person who becomes a resident of the Gulch may very well indeed support Obama, and left wing liberal ideas. If they are really a person who is interested in "REASON" then that support will fade very quickly.

    Ayn Rand also was a supporter of people to be entitled to their own personal views. The real caveat in this is that a person who supports Obama AND is a resident of the Gulch would NEVER get a handout an entitlement, and would be expected to present complete REASON and not emotion when discussing a topic.

    Eventually either Reason will win them over and they will stop supporting stupidity, and become a person of reason, or they will leave, and will no longer be a resident.

    We all know for a 100% certainty that Liberal views are based completely on ideology and emotion devoid of REAL facts.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 6 years, 11 months ago
      Being entitled to your own views doesn't make them right. The question was about the content of one's position, not the biological possibility of endorsing falsehood and contradiction.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeanStriker 6 years, 11 months ago
    NO! In Galt's Gulch there can be No Ruler. It's all Voluntary.
    No "president" and certainly no Pseudo-Prez!
    Frankly, who can name ANY "good" president of any Government of Force?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo