Observations from the Election that still hold true when the VP running mate was on The Daily show:
1. When asked the democratic nominee stated that although he thought the war was a bad idea (after voting for it in the Senate 6 months previously) he would continue it because withdrawing now was not an option. How is this different than what Bush is saying?
2. Bush is a born again Christian. The numbers, as reported by 60 minutes show that fully 60% of all of the money raised by the Republicans is from religious groups. Further Bush has nominated two anti-abortion, take away basic human freedom types to the supreme court. Oh, and one of them is a born again nut just like him. The numbers and the actions of Bush don't lie. The purpose is to create a Christian state, there can be no other interpretation of both the money base's position (just read their web sites) and Bush's own actions and his words.
3. WASP means White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Yes, Protestant (i.e. Bush is a Protestant). Gotta love uneducated people that don't even know their own terminology.
4. As for the jew and republican... That would make you a very threatened person. Because if Bush has his way, you're going to be a religious minority in a country run by the Christian church and it's values, which include but are not limited to no birth control, and no abortion and, well if you take Bush's comments in context and then read the books of one of Bush's staunchest supporters, the Christian right wants to encourage Jews in Israel to piss off the Muslims (that's what a Palestinian is btw, they're Muslims) enough to cause the battle at Armageddon. (yes, it's a place)
5. I didn't say that Republicans love religion and democrats hate it, I said it's a matter of how much you love it or don't. The degrees decide how you vote. As for Democrats not wanting Stalinism. Of course they don't. No rational animal would. But the belief system that got Russia to Stalin and that of socialists is the same. The only difference is degree and therefore the amount of suffering. Under communism the Russians not only did not increase their standard of living but cut it in half. In the same time period, the realtively free United States increased their standard of living by a factor of 20. All degrees of socialism versus degrees of capitalism ever tried have effectively the same results in direct relation to the degree of socialism or capitalism tried. (Again, not my numbers, see "The Capitalist Manifesto" for the stats, most of which actually come from socialists trying to lie to you and spin those same numbers.) Socialism = corruption and death. How many examples must I show you before it becomes obvious? John Stewart's comment about "there has to be a middle ground [between capitalism and socialism]" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the problem of socialism. To put it religiously it's like asking to find a middle ground between God and the devil. Any Christian would find the concept ridiculous, and yet billions of people world wide are more than willing to do a deal with the devil in the name of some misguided duty to “their fellow man” or “the greater good” and the outcomes are entirely predictable (Katrina).
6. As for the people thinking I've only read Rand. Think again, I've read 3 different versions of the bible (at least the different parts after reading one of them in interest of full disclosure, gotta love Deuteronomy!), the translated Koran, a translated Talmud, the teachings of Budda in the original texts translated to English, the teachings of Hindi as written by one of it's most popular supporters that established schools throughout the United States and Canada in addition to many schools in India, I'm a very well read person on the beliefs of many of the Native people of North America, and have even read several books on Paganism. (most specifically as it relates to Constantine's theft of many of the Pagan holidays and observances and incorporation in Christianity) I've read the "manifestos" of Kant, Locke, Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Rand and Marx. Further my mother was a History teacher, so I was inundated with it my entire child life.
Now, is there anyone else in here that can claim to be that widely read? If you are, then you have standing to be able to debate if I have arrived at my understanding of reality from an objective position with full knowledge of the alternatives. Otherwise, I suggest that accidentals (i.e. people that believe what they do because their parents told them to, or their educational system brainwashed them into it without ever having them understand philosophy and the science behind it) should be very careful of their accusations.
Rand's Objectivism is the only philosophical system that does not present contradictions even at the most superficial of levels. Marx's entire position is contradictory and false in the first 5 paragraphs (much like the Unibomber’s manifesto which if you accept the premise, which is clearly and easily proven incorrect, is a brilliant piece of writing) and can be proven wrong by the statistics of the time, little own the historical evidence of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (both Socialist states). Kant tells us all that there is nothing real that it is all an illusion and even if it is real, we can't possibly trust our senses to tell us what is real and what isn't thus we're all clueless animals clawing along in the dark searching for something that we can never possibly know. Sorry, but that was disproved by Newton 200 years before Kant when he dropped an apple and using his senses determined the force of gravity and then used his intellect to figure out the mathematical equation that proves it absolutely and consistently 100% of the time. Einstein did the same with specific relativity 150 years later when he used math to reach an absolute, always correct equation that cannot be debated (E=mc^2) and then later scientists were able to use observational tests to prove that what Einstein predicted would be true as a result of that simple equation actually was true. (i.e. the speed of light isn't dependant on the observer and the incidental effect of the equation that matter gets more massive the closer to the speed of light it gets.) (I happen to have done several papers on Einstein, two of which I won awards for, so I know the math of both general and specific relativity and fully understand exactly what it all means, which I would guess most everyone reading this does not.)
So if you value your mind and believe that you are more than a beast and rail against the circular logic of religionism then your natural position is Objectivism. That is, if you believe that your mind can point out contradiction and that there is no such thing as a contradiction, then you must rule out all other philosophical systems, leaving you with Objectivism, which is the only philosophical system ever presented that has not been proven wrong, despite the best efforts of subjectivists and relgionists everywhere.
My position is one of deductive reasoning arrived at with an incredible background of knowledge of almost all of the alternatives, or at least all of the ones that we currently have. If you want to dismiss that because you prefer your own ignorance, so be it. But make no mistake, arguing that I am small minded is ridiculous when your background of knowledge is almost certainly smaller than mine in the field of philosophy and religion. (for all of the philosophical scholars in the room, I'm not talking to you and I would welcome a debate with you. We'll bring our proof and mentally joust.)
If you want to argue my points with a strong backing or even any evidence that I’m wrong, please do so. I will be happy to review your evidence and your position. If I think you’re right, I’ll admit it (I have done so in the past in these very forums.). If I think you’re wrong I’ll defend my position and give as much proof as I can, either logical proof or cold hard facts depending on the context of the disagreement. What I won’t put up with, is ignorant fools talking out of their ass with no knowledge of why they believe what they do beyond the superficial “I’m better than you because I help my fellow man” bullshit which amounts to a “blankout” as Rand would put it.
