humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article @e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, agentcooper9@gmail.com says...

> For me, this is the *only* meaningful issue on the table. Now I've
> already stated what I think needs to happen here (rebranding, which
> means at least a Democrat, and preferably a Democrat with clean hands
> on Iraq, if I may use such a loaded expression). Because (1) no one is
> going to get us out of Iraq, so if you like it there, there's nothing
> to worry about, (2) we could use some help over there and in
> Afghanistan, in case one hadn't noticed, and so the most important
> foreign policy asset the next president could have would be PR skills
> with non-Americans,

Coop, Coop - we have the NUKES, man! Non-Americans who don't fall in
line will simply have to go. Boom goes London, boom Paree! More room
for you and more room for me! When you hold the moral high ground, you
incinerate people, you don't ask for help.

> Now Charles has made a lot of hay out of principles. OK. Vote
> principles. But that *has* to mean DON'T VOTE. From an Objectivist
> perspective, all three candidates are SO FAR FROM ACCEPTABLE that it
> would have to be some sort of crime to so much as even participate in
> this election. Now I'm a pragmatist. My principle is "make life better
> for me, mine, my country, the world, in that order." This is what I've

And here I thought that was egoism, not pragmatism! Well, as someone
once said, the moral is the practical.

--
Gordon