Post: #26

Ayn Rand was a woman. When has a woman ever developed a coherent philosophical theory? It's just not in them.

Post: #27

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.

Post: #28

(11-01-2012 04:20 PM)cat_a_clysm Wrote:  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.

Romney was a male cheerleader.

That alone is reason not to like him.

I mean, do you like male cheerleaders?

Post: #29

(11-01-2012 04:22 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Romney was a male cheerleader.

Bush was too...

Post: #30

(11-01-2012 04:12 PM)Menace Wrote:  Ayn Rand was a woman. When has a woman ever developed a coherent philosophical theory? It's just not in them.

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.

Post: #31

Getting caught up in dissing the personal character of candidates is just a distraction from looking at their actual policies. That's the important thing.

Post: #32

(10-31-2012 09:58 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  



Obama's new BFF, the darling of the right and Rmoney's number 1 surrogate, Chris Christie. He just can't stop praising Obama and saying what a good job he has done.

Christie knows Mittens is done, might as well get his credentials ready for 2016.

man is he ever in shit if Romney wins

Post: #33

(11-01-2012 06:11 PM)christpuncher Wrote:  

(11-01-2012 04:12 PM)Menace Wrote:  Ayn Rand was a woman. When has a woman ever developed a coherent philosophical theory? It's just not in them.

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.

she got this bit right:

Post: #34

(11-01-2012 04:12 PM)Menace Wrote:  Ayn Rand was a woman. When has a woman ever developed a coherent philosophical theory? It's just not in them.

She was a Russian (Jewish) woman, from the first half of the century: both reasons why she was much more logical than the typical American feminist-inspired chick.

Post: #35

(11-01-2012 08:30 PM)megatron Wrote:  

(11-01-2012 04:12 PM)Menace Wrote:  Ayn Rand was a woman. When has a woman ever developed a coherent philosophical theory? It's just not in them.

She was a Russian (Jewish) woman, from the first half of the century: both reasons why she was much more logical than the typical American feminist-inspired chick.

You are aware that many prominent feminists have been Jewish women?

Gloria Steinem
Andrea Dworkin AKA "all men are rapists."
and many more.

Post: #36

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.

Post: #37

@ 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.

Post: #38

I read some of Rand's stuff until I got to an article where she was demonizing Immanuel Kant. She is as loony as a bat. She wasn't surrounded by captains of industry, but rather weak psychobabble manginas like Nathaniel Branden.

Post: #39

(11-01-2012 04:24 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(11-01-2012 04:22 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Romney was a male cheerleader.

Bush was too...

Post: #40

For Brian and Tenderman

Post: #41

If we're going to judge presidents on their athleticism I think I'll pick Bush for my team.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcSIwBWiPoU

Post: #42

Nate Silver's forecasting has always been wildly pro-Obama... take 538 with a grain of salt.
That said, it does essentially come down to Ohio - which Obama has a good chance of winning.

Still, the last-minute affect could aid Romney in Ohio.
I'd say the odds are 60-40 in favor of Obama at the moment.

Post: #43

(11-02-2012 09:49 AM)IQVX Wrote:  Still, the last-minute affect could aid Romney in Ohio.
I'd say the odds are 60-40 in favor of Obama at the moment.

Not gonna happen. O has the Mo.

Even the right's favourite pollster Rasmussen has the race tied today.

Post: #44

(11-02-2012 09:43 AM)painter Wrote:  If we're going to judge presidents on their athleticism I think I'll pick Bush for my team.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcSIwBWiPoU

Heh. Bush was a jerkoff who went back on everything he stood for during his initial campaign (small government, no nation building, etc). but damn, that right there is an embarassing display by Obama "the Alpha."

Post: #45

I want Judge Judy to be president.

Post: #46

I've got a feeling we're going to be in for a big surprise with this election

Post: #47

There can be a surprise, and there is ca 25% chance of a surprise.
Betfair's odds is the most accurate for these things. Its easy to call it an even race when talking to someone, but when you have to put your money where your mouth is, everything changes. Therefore the accuracy of the odds.

I bet a whole lot on Obama at 1.47 and will trade out some at 1.3.

But don’t really fear for my bet anyway. Even if there is some big cooperation’s trying to manipulate in favor of Romeny, I think most people are responsible enough to avoid another republican in office. The worldwide tragedy when Bush was in charge will not easily be forgotten.

Post: #48

(11-01-2012 04:09 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(11-01-2012 03:51 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  The Economist just did as well.

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?

Being a business man would be an disadvantage in the country I live in and also in most western and northern european countries.

Why is it seen as an advantage in USA?

The principles of running a state and a buisness is very different.

Post: #49

(11-01-2012 09:04 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(11-01-2012 08:30 PM)megatron Wrote:  

(11-01-2012 04:12 PM)Menace Wrote:  Ayn Rand was a woman. When has a woman ever developed a coherent philosophical theory? It's just not in them.

She was a Russian (Jewish) woman, from the first half of the century: both reasons why she was much more logical than the typical American feminist-inspired chick.

You are aware that many prominent feminists have been Jewish women?

Gloria Steinem
Andrea Dworkin AKA "all men are rapists."
and many more.

Yes, and several prominent anti-feminists, Christina Hoff Summers for example, are also Jewish.

You can put Judge Judy in there too.

Post: #50

Bush is a political hack like the rest of them. No point arguing that he never followed through on his promises... none of them do.

Bush was (for a political silver spooned American Aristocrat) most definitely Alpha as hell.

That is the one reason I am balkish on Obama. Americans don't like Betas-in-cheif. They can smell one a mile away and boot him out after one term.