... we're desperate for hope over here?? It's not like there has been anything other than a slow, ratcheting decline into statism since Thomas Jefferson left office 200 years ago. We've had some presidential candidates who talk a good liberty-oriented game, but we still get further and further away from liberty with each election. And McCain may not be drawing crowds, but he's just like the majority of Republican candidates over the last several years in that he is almost indistinguishable from the Democrats.

Trust me, I've been afraid my whole life...!

I have to wonder how much shit talking do you think we Americans are going to put up with, exactly...?

Have you seen the size audiences that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pulling?

Be very, very afraid :) 

I have to wonder how much shit talking do you think we Americans are going to put up with, exactly...? And that goes for you too, Linz!!!

Galt forbid we who dwell within the land of the formerly free retain enough optimism to think a prominent enemy of liberty can become enlightened enough to reverse his position. Bang! You got us, Linz: Americans - guilty of wishful thinking. Our 'mob' would be so much smarter if we always assumed the worst; that anything positive must be a joke.

A hugely important announcement.

joke included for edification of Americans

As an aside, the fact 'Americans' (it's probably fine to talk about them from a mob mentality point of view), ... the fact the Americans took your Gore post here as literal is worrying.

If I think about some of my prose creations on this thread, well ... I assume they think I'm certifiable.

Which is fine, because they're 'all' crazy anyway (extraction from Sandi's Grouping Theorem )

On the thread in question, as I recall, I favoured the sale. Sandi's position was that the consortium was advancing the Islamofascist agenda. If it were, that would be a reason—nay, an imperative—not to sell. But we must always expect to have to debate these matters. "Evil" is not a word to use lightly of those who disagree. Heard Steinem on McCain today? That's evil. Heard Obama on mandatory community service? That's evil. Read a Greens' press release? That's evil. Those things and anything at all that pisses me off are evil (joke included for edification of Americans). Sandi is not evil.

Thanks for this post Linz, particularly because it does give me the platform to, clearly, air some of my thoughts, well, 'issues', as I've been making plain lately - and to this thread, rather than stalking Sandi through thread and dale

The one thing we both know is you will always be forthright and honest to yourself in your opinons here, (that's why this is the best Objectivist site in town) and the only thing required for me to remain in good faith will be to do likewise. But, as I've said on another thread, I have such a lot to do work-wise, I should not be spending quite so much time here (bloody Internet, it's so easy to lose hours, and my time sheets lately are a mess), so I'll put a post up this weekend (along with those Kiri letters.)

... And I want time to order my thoughts better, for there is very little I disagree with in your post ... the gist of my problem is when viewing issues such as I posted this morning in the Auckland Airport thread, particularly, " There is certainly one thread on this forum devoted to how a Dubai based buy-in would have been an horrific eventuality precisely due to this very fact (Islam), regardless of any considerations of free capital, open markets, etc, which obviously have to be subservient to issues of race and religion [that was facetious please note in the context of that thread]... albeit, I am personally confused at how we strive for freedom from this foundation. ..."

That is, I see eye to eye with you strategically, it's just on the tactical level things fall apart for me. Plus the whole issue of mob mentality verse the individual, broached by you re 'individual audit'.

So, later

[Oh, one omission on my behalf: I did not understand Sandi was the Jihad Kasser, which explains the preponderance of her posts on that subject, so I apologise for that quip of mine, which was thus out of order. Although, of course, I disagree with Sandi on almost every other point over which we have crossed, and I am of course in every other respect right ]

Just so we're clear—Sandi is SOLO's "Jihad-KASSer." That's an official staff position. We have it because the Jihadists declared Jihad on the West. And they represent a stinking stupid superstition which I for one don't want to see imposed on the West, a stinking stupid superstition that mainstream politicians and even some Objectivists and libertarians prefer to butt-lick rather than butt-kick. If there are a lot of "anti-Muslim" threads, it's because Islam is vile and SOLO, as part of its commitment to reason and freedom, is prepared to stand up and be counted on its vileness.

This fixation on auditing every Muslim is ridiculous and has nothing to do with avoiding collectivism. It's over to the "innocent" Muslims to proclaim their dissociation from the militant sub-filth, not over to us to litigate on their behalf. Jihad is waged in their name—it's over to them to repudiate it. To those who do I extend the benefit of the doubt—with ongoing wariness. To the rest—no way. This is war. They declared it.

Oh, but one thing Linz:

Try focussing on something that matters

Well, that is the freedom of the individual, which involves relating to people as individuals, and understanding 'individuality': one thing that Sandi has never understood. And there is stubborn, and there is evil, and evil will go on and monotonously on, if never taken to task for fear of hurting its feelings, or whatever the issue here is.

Plus, I reckon I will have died of boredom from all the anti-Muslim threads now on SOLO, long before the Jihadists get me. Because regarding a healthy abhorrence for that cave man faith, 'I got it', long ago.

But I know, free choice: I'll leave those alone for a while. Above all my concerns, I respect the property of a man whom I have a great deal of admiration for.

Just for the record

I know everyone else has got it.

But re the stalking, okay, (other than for blatant abuses, mind you, no holds barred there, you'd just have to knock me off if push ever comes to shove ) - I do tend to get a dog with a bone syndrome from time to time. Will attempt to cool my heels for a little while.

And yes, will get to the Kiri letters, promise, might be this weekend though. I note today letters are still coming in so will be able to do a one off summary on Saturday. 'Decorum' seems to come up in a lot of letters. And 'arrogant'

You're in love with Sandi. But ya really oughtn't stalk her like this. Try focussing on something that matters, like the Kiri letters.

[To be read with heroic arias sung by Kiri Te Kanawa in the background.]

[All links in the following article provided by Sandi-Watch (Subsidiary of Islamic-Watch: Part of the Sites Against Collectivism group of companies.)]

Mark Hubbard, intrepid reporter here, back from the trenches, to deliver my judgement in the campaign against the racist bullshit infecting SOLO. The toll on my person has been high. First I was impugned as a wanker. Then I was so outrageously denied my just awards. And now I have had delivered unto me, the white feather of a supposed coward. All this for simply upholding the primary place of the Individual, and the exhortation to judge all individuals 'true unto themselves'.

So, white feather pinched prettily behind my ear, let me to war against the forces of collectivism in our very midst, with a ball busting bravery seldom seen.

On at least two threads, much has been made by the 'suggestive facts' of Barack Obama's ancestry being 'indicative' of a Muslim in bad clothing on the USA Presidential campaign. Slick ...

... but sick. And of course, racist.

I present the enemy of the individual.

Sandi. Unsweet, stubborn Sandi, who categorically, cruelly denies that the ethnic cleansing of 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica was a 'massacre'. Who will not admit revulsion at the prospect of genocide as a solution to the 'Muslim Problem'. And now, these, threads dragged up for us from Allah's bottom, suggesting a spurious significance to Obama's black African ancestry, the love life of his mother, and that we must, therefore, concur with Sandi's theorem: black man = Muslim = Jihadist. (As first postulated on the hi-jacker = black woman = Muslim = Jihadist thread.)

Then Richard Wiig wades through the sea of blood and gore with, 'Given the importance of Obama it's important to judge the man in as full a context as possible. Details about his family life and upbringing, including the relationships of his mother, all add the broader picture.' .

The 'broader picture', yeah right. Well, my furry little friend, why are we not trying to provide a 'broader picture' for that other Democrat, Hilary? On not one thread do we have investigations into her family background. Why? Surely, she could have Christian nuns or Fascist Huns in her ancestry. And worse, unlike Obama, she is, shock, horror, not on record as saying, anywhere, that she is not a Muslim - I've searched, but nowhere.

So why no investigation of this? Could it be, possibly, because she's white = not black = not Muslim = not Jihadist?

?

This has got to stop.

The only matter of importance is this: Obama is on record as saying he is a Christian. That is what we have from his mouth. I quote Timesonline his words:

Barack Obama was directly confronted on prime time television last night over allegations swirling around the internet that he is a secret Muslim who worships the Koran, during a Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. .

Shock, horror, he is going to be revealed for the world to see!

But no, continuing the quotation:

Mr Obama, who was raised as a Christian by his white mother despite his Kenyan father being Muslim, has been dogged by smears and innuendo for months that he is in fact an Islamist trying to enter the Oval office by stealth.

"Let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to the American flag] and lead the pledge of allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I'm presiding."

Damning isn't it. "Let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian."

Now in the mind of this intrepid reporter, Christianity is little better than Islam, except that fortunately it has its teeth in the jar, and sword broken in two at the bottom of its sick bed, but that is by the way; Obama has said he is Christian, not Muslim. At this point, his ancestry, his mothers love life, his uncle in Africa, (significantly, for Sandi's theorem, all of whom are black = Muslim = Jihadist), are utterly irrelevant.

It is now to Obama's words and deeds that we must look for contradiction. Talking with his dad, who his mum is doing 'da thing' with, lunching with the uncle, provides no proof of what is going on in his mind, or what his future actions are likely to be; these are simply matters of family relations (no more than you can assume that my atheist self is a fundamentalist Christian when lunching with my fundamentalist Christian parents, which I often do. For this purpose, my ancestry tells you nothing relevant or useful about my beliefs, or how I now conduct my life, through the operation of my rational mind. I am utterly different to my family, and to what I was in my youth.

[Ahem, hands up all the teenage/student campus communists in our midst.]

It's not just that the collectivist claptrap coming from Obama's mouth should be enough to bury him, it's not that he is electioneering on a platform of pulling out the troops from Iraq, which will be a disaster, and is in my opinion, immoral, that is all beside the point regarding the racist, collectivist threads that I am battling in this forum: by these racist slurs, these 'suggestive facts', Sandi, Richard Wiig, you smear Objectivism because this site is an Objectivist site.

[Wind Kiri up to full tit now, we're climaxing ...]

To employ this smear is to become the enemy, and once we have become our enemy, on what ground are we left fighting?

It's about the freedom of the damned individual. And under Sandi and Richard Wiig, the individual is surely damned.

[To be read with a mushy melody of Hayley Westenra in the foreground.]

[Ancillary motives: I talk my politics with my friends and business associates, and would love to refer them to this site. At this stage I still hold back from doing so, in the main part, because threads like these, to the uninitiated, with such a preponderance of exuberance toward the type of behaviour on them stated above, and the other threads in which I have taken up the cudgel, will give my associates a totally distorted notion of what it is that is so important to me, which is the freedom of the individual (from the State, from religion, from the stupidity of others, from collectivist bigotry, from collectivist racism, from my ancestry.)

Thus this is my mission. Pertaining to this place, as with whatever place I'm in, if it doesn't live up to what I would like, I will try and change it. I will keep banging away in these threads. If I am wrong, I will be resisted, as it should be, and if rational arguments can be raised against me, fine, but on this I cannot be wrong because Objectivism is the answer to the vileness of racism, thus can never be a promoter of it, as Sandi continues to abuse it here. Indeed, one more time even while I was writing this.]

Mark Hubbard, individualist, intrepid reporter back from the trenches. Again, the whale bones of misfortune have been flung upon my person, outrageously denied a February Award for my scintitilating prose, and worse, to be thrown to the dogs by Sir Lancelot, alias, Big Boy, rubbing salt in my open, fetid maw, sorry, my open, abscessed sore, nailed to my cross, forced ignominiously to watch, mine enemy, one genocidal maniac, no less, slinking away to the East with, what! With my award!

Wait, you proclaimeth unto me, what is this, an Objectivist site awarding a genocidal maniac for collectivist bigotry: what can this mean, this 'thick hide of the month award'. Some type of pc’hissyness taking a walk on the tyrant-side.

Well this festering reporter suggests same award be re-named forthwith, by mechanism, simply, of removing the 'hide'. For surely only by stupidity can one justify genocide, and if by no stupidity, then what type of evil must be stalking the fallen halls of this forum?

Your erstwhile intrepid reporter putting a brick in his undies and signing off to investigate more shock, horror revelations, to be brought to you by installment. Tune in soon for 'The taming of the one issue shrew'.

[War Journal: heard from the trenches just this week:

'A campaign based on the facts of reality, viewing people 'true to themselves', sticks to just that, the facts of reality, not 'suggestive facts' from racist minds.'

At this point, Heroic Individual Man slumped upon himself, lost his speech, beckoned me toward his bloodied mouth. I put down my ear and heard him whisper, '... the silence ... the silence is deafening, other than, other than, that lovely damsel, Lady Suma.' He then turned his noble head toward the West, and sighed, and passed before my eyes.]

'Scintitilating' - there's an award in itself. Lancelot's a Philistine

Intrepid reporter back, bringing news from the trenches. Fraid to say I've taken a hit, a bad one, been called a wanker no less, luckily no more, yet. I just want to say - God, it hurts - I just want to say, this day, 27 February, year of our Lord, 2008, your reporter will remain the rugged individualist. I will not submit myself to the ministrations of Kevin Owen, worshiper of Big Daddy, my namesake. I will not go hairpiece in hand to the State looking for succour or for Big Brother to pay for the stress this heinous name calling has caused. I will submit no more to team building sessions, including that silly one where you pass the tennis ball from chin to chin, (yep, all male bloody team). Not I. No more. This intrepid reporter is hitting back at the collectivists.

Dragged from the trenches of indignation in which I was most viscously attacked, wiping the spit and phlegm from my eyes, I give you my own, my very very own, wanker's credo. This will I (hopefully) say unto the end of my time:

'I came to Objectivism via Ayn Rand via, at the very inception, Linz's old radio show. Linz used to either sign on or off (can't remember which) that show quoting possibly the most complex, and most beautiful, sentence in the English language (not surprisingly, written by The Bard):

'To thine ownself be true.'

It's a funny thing, but a sentence can change the path of a life: for me, that one did, because it brought a whole lot of confusion I had at the time to a single point of focus, and enabled me to think and read my way out of it.

But my point here is that there is a corollary to this sentence, that the onus is on us, as the enemies of collectivists of all ilks, to judge other people true to their own selves, not to their uncles, not to their parents, not even to their mentors, not the stereotypes we have of their race, their ethnicity, the shape of their waists: just to their own words and deeds.

For me, at the core of Objectivism is the Individual, so sayeth this individual, handsomely facing the world.'

This intrepid reporter, limping and signing out. For now.

Yes, he is at best vacuous, at worst Socialist - although of course, unfortunately, both: liberal socialist (liberal of the modern no-nothing variety, not a classical liberal). And if he does profess Muslim belief, or he has bought into that philosophy, then a dangerous man indeed. Can someone give more solid evidence on what Obama has said about this (not Sandi/Richard W. cross referencing the entire Interent evidence, facts from Obama's own speeches, etc).

(Note Richard W., what  he has said or done, not his uncle, father, or third cousin.)

...to despise Obama. His views, when he actually bothers to state them amid his sermon-like rallies and appearances, are enough for anyone who understands FDR-style New Dealism for the horror it really is to dismiss him altogether. Don't need any other reason to despise him equally among Hillary (vomit) and McLeftist-in-Rightist clothing.