Forum Post: CNN poll: Ryan 48%, Biden 44%
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 11, 2012, 11:53 p.m. EST by stevebol
(1269)
from Milwaukee, WI
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I don't have cable but that's funny.
"What Ayn Rand Taught Paul Ryan" (Video) :
“I grew up reading Ayn Rand, and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.” - Rep. Paul Ryan.
You sure about that CNN poll btw, lol !!
fiat lux ...
Ryan better go back & read Rand again. His ideas & especially the things he has voted for are nothing like what she advocated.
"Ryan better go back & read Rand again.", huh ? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate why and exactly what it was that she "advocated" - other than anti-human psychopathology !
fiat lux ...
Rand & Ryan only share a view that govt is necessary. Unfortunately, that is a commonly held view. After that they go in very different directions. Rand was an advocate of a minimal govt voluntarily financed. She adhered to the non aggression principle. Ryan is an advocate of taxation & regulation of the economy.
Rand, as opposed to the left, advocated that people should not be used as a means to others ends but should be free to pursue their own best interest while respecting the equal right of other to do the same. Ryan & the left believe in exploiting people by forcing them to part with their money (taxation) & other forcibly imposed govt interventions in the economy.
To this Objectivist Ryan is merely using Rand as a campaign prop. Like most people, he's not intelligent enough to understand Rand. Therefore, like most of her critics, he misrepresents her ideas.
Consider this:
"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
--Ayn Rand
That is sophistry and psycho-pathology couched into a pseudo-intellectual artifice and strives to take 'heart centre blockage' as virtue. Rand's "Objectivism" was the apotheosis of selfishness, imo. Dare you read the two articles I have copied to 'Corium' below ? Do you think Ryan isn't 'Randian' enough ?
Re."Like most people, he's not intelligent enough to understand Rand." - that speaks volumes I think !
amor vincit omnia ...
Yes, she was very open about advocating selfishness. She also defined the term precisely:
"The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
"The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
Please explain what's wrong with that.
You are clearly an Ayn Rand true believer as evidenced by your penchant for 'copy/pasting' her words. Rand contends that selfishness is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The despised poor deserve to die and the rich deserve unmediated power !
Objectivism holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing she insists, to anyone - even to members of our own families. Rand described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government : no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations or no income tax she claims !!
It is not hard to see why Rand appeals to billionaires. She offers them something that is crucial to every successful political movement : a sense of victimhood. She tells them that they are parasitised by the ungrateful poor and oppressed by intrusive, controlling governments. The truth is totally the reverse !!!
ad iudicium ...
You stand reality on its head. Billionaires want a powerful govt they can use to screw the rest of us over. They most definitely don't want a free market.
If you don't agree with the quote above you should do more than post evasions. You should explain what's wrong with it, or do you think that some should be sacrificed to others? Do you not think that we should "deal with one another as traders, giving value for value"? Or would you rather the barbaric way of dealing with each other by force?
You simply cut and pasted two paragraphs and I do not really feel particularly obligated to answer your questions to aid you in construction of yet another 'straw man'. However, consider that maybe the most devoted member of Rand's inner circle was Alan Greenspan, former head of the US Federal Reserve.
Among the essays he wrote for Rand were those published in a book he co-edited with her called - "Capitalism : the Unknown Ideal", which you'll know of course. Here, starkly explained, one finds the philosophy he brought into government. He argues that there's no need for the regulation of business he argued, as "the 'greed' of the businessman or, more appropriately, his 'profit-seeking' - is the unexcelled protector of the consumer. As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients guarantees that they will act with honour and integrity". Unregulated capitalism, he maintains, is a "superlatively moral system".
This is Ayn Rand's real legacy but frankly your 'Objectivity' (if not 'Objectivism', lol) is fundamentally suspect, so let's face it - we are now really talking past, through and around each other here.
alea jacta est ...
Actually, Greenspan abandoned Objectivism. The fact that he once advocated a gold standard but then ran the central bank that issues a fiat currency says it all. Unregulated capitalism doesn't have a Fed.
Anyway, I accept that you can't answer my questions. Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
Rand and Randians have effectively subverted US Politricks. To 'subvert' means to 'turn from below' - however we need a new word which means 'to turn from above'. The primary threat to the democratic state and its functions comes not from 'mob rule' or any leftwing insurrection, but from the very rich 0.01%ers and the corporations that they run.
Rand has inspired a whole group of rightwing vanguardians who are mobilising, initially to break and thereafter - to capture a political system that is meant to belong to all of us. Often like some Maoist insurrectionaries, they talk of 'creative destruction' - about the 'breaking of chains and the slipping of shackles'. However in their case, the 1% appear to be trying to 'free' themselves of the constraints of democracy itself and at this juncture - they seem to be winning.
Thus Rand's legacy runs deep in The USA and very little of it is for the good of The US 99% as she & her ideas and legacy are actually antithetical to Occupy Wall Street's 'raison d'etre' and broader vision.
Finally re.'Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito' - lol & your probable affiliation for von Mises is no surprise at all & you can "accept" or deny whatever you wish but at least try to consider the following link :
multum in parvo ...
[Deleted]
That Psycho-Bitch ?!! Are you Fkn Nuts ?I! I try to be open minded, so go on then, try me & quote her !
ne quid nimis ...
I believe that you would agree with her that facsism is a very bad thing for societies?
Of course I'd agree that "Fascism is a bad thing" but would need to see some proof that Psycho-Rand ever said such a thing & frankly, what if she did ?
ad iudicium ...
So even if she got things right you don't care. Is that the idea?
"It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism." --Ayn Rand
So even if she got things right you don't care. Is that the idea?
I think Shadz said "Yes":
Please consider : Ayn "Loopy" Rand Hated Democracy with a rare passion & the Lincolnian Definition (Govt. - off ; by & for - The People) is her nemesis and cure and very necessary remedy !!
ad iudicium ...
And yet she ended up loving the benefits she so despised.
Hypocrisy, hubris & hate are the currency of The Self-Selected Elites (translation = 'Parasites') !!! They can not do without us whereas we would do much better without them !! Rand was rightly in receipt of social security and other benefits as befits an elderly, infirm and/or poor person, as the rest of us are not - Nor Want To Be - human-hating psychopaths !
amor vincit omnia ...
See - that is just the point - they do not recognize the humanity of others. It is all about them. Twisted fucks.
Put the mthrfkrs on an island and let them get on with it - just leave the rest of us 'TF' alone !!
spiro meliora ...
Yep - I might even be persuaded to buy a ticket to watch them turn on each other on closed circuit tv. Hmmmm would global warming sea level rise get em before they got each other?
Or it could drown all the fkrs ... 'clouds & silver linings' 'n' all that !!!
hallucinating pillows ...
Karma catching up - live/dead on tv.
Odd that people criticize Rand for doing what she had to do considering that the critics are the first ones to advocate cutting off options. Rand, first, had to pay taxes to fund Medicaid, Social Security, ad nauseum. This kept her from having money for alternatives. Wait, there are no alternatives because the state subsidizes, licenses, & regulates medical pros. This is also why health care is so expensive, subsidizing, licensing, & regulation reduce competition, reduce supply, & drive up costs. So what's a sick person to do? Had there really were really been alternatives then Rand could be justly criticized for taking the loot. When you deny alternatives then criticize for using the only option available you make fools of yourselves.
1) "Rand, first, had to pay taxes to fund Medicaid, Social Security, ad nauseum. This kept her from having money for alternatives." = Specious ;
2) "Wait, there are no alternatives because the state subsidizes, licenses, & regulates medical pros. This is also why health care is so expensive, subsidizing, licensing, & regulation reduce competition, reduce supply, & drive up costs." = Extreme ;
3) "So what's a sick person to do? Had there really were really been alternatives then Rand could be justly criticized for taking the loot." = Tendentious ;
4) And finally (though maybe not!) - "When you deny alternatives then criticize for using the only option available you make fools of yourselves." = Amusing {:-p)
multum in parvo ...
You forgot:
Darren's post = right
Yes darren, far too "right" for my tastes - which is patently why a 'leftist' like myself can never have any truck with your 'magical thinking hocus pocus', lol.
verum ex absurdo ...
[Deleted]
I'll leave you to your apologia, eulogies and prejudices & refer other readers - if not yourself, to :
http://occupywallst.org/forum/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand-or-compassionless-conservat/ ,
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-real-ayn-rand/ and again ..
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-ayn-rand-became-the-new-rights-version-of-marx/ .
Finally, please reflect upon :
"The Meaning of Altruism", by Paul Balles : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32539.htm &
"Paul Ryan And The Fountainhead", by Uri Avnery : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32277.htm .
Do you think Rand also knew about Bar Giora, Hashomer, Haganah, Palmach, Irgun/ Etzel, The Lehi Undergound/Stern Gang? What was their 'm.o.'? Eg. had she heard of the King David Hotel bombing?
fiat lux ...
Jaisus. Way to hold back "S".
Corium took the blue pill, right?
Hey 'B' & not just the one "blue pill" either, by the sound of things !!
pax, amor et lux ...
[Deleted]
There is much for real reflection right there. 100% opposite of Rand has it's attraction though there too may lay dogmatic, intransigent, nihilistic misanthropy. Nevertheless, thanx for your gracious comment.
vincit qui se vincit ...
From The Meaning of Altruism:
"This is a near-perfect description of the present conflict between America's two political parties." One is "selfish" & the other isn't? Please.
Rand was wrong to support Israel & call Arabs savages, of course. Though this was based on her view that the Israelis were generally more rational than the Arabs. I'd think twice about calling the author of Racism ( http://alexpeak.com/twr/racism/ ) a racist though. Anyway, it seems strange to hear this kind of criticism of Rand from the left whose progressive predecessors advocated Eugenics. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Regardless, her mistakes don't invalidate the things she got right.
Re. Rand & your "Regardless, her mistakes don't invalidate the things she got right." errrrr, what are these "things she got right" again ?!
ad iudicium ...
Not to initiate the use of force is the main thing she got right.
Consider : My NOT punching my neighbour in the head (even when he annoys the fk out of me) does NOT make me a virtuous person !!!
Furthermore, IF I were then to engage in propaganda and abject disdain for him and 'people like him' and consider myself oh so fkn, superior to him - then maybe just maybe, I actually could, should and would be regarded as a Dangerous, Evil Nutter !!
I have seen and commended your blog. You appeared to be a highly intelligent and nuanced individual - but mate, I just don't get where your head is at !
ad iudicium ...
Not punching your neighbor in the head sounds virtuous to me. Not sticking a gun in his face to take his money is virtuous too. Do you refrain from that too?
no, No, NO !!! We do not simply become 'good' by merely NOT doing 'bad' !! Sort it out 'darrenloco' !
ad iudicium ...
I have sorted it out, thank you. Here's the lesson for you, it has to do with the concept of rights. They are about being left free to do what you see fit as long as you respect the equal rights of others to do the same. This is the negative concept of rights & is the correct one. There is a positive view of rights that claims that there are rights to man made things like medical care. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/rights.html This view seems to be the one you embrace. The problem is that in order to have positive rights negative rights must be violated. For example, if one has a right to health care then others rights must be violated to pay for it (taxes). Not to mention the physicians become slaves as they are obligated to treat everyone regardless of their judgement on the subject.
Bastiat summed it up nicely:
"Law Is a Negative Concept
"The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.
"As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
"But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.
"Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice." http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G030
Didactic, dogmatic, pedantic and playing semantics !!! Insisting that 'rights' are merely "about being left free to do what you see fit as long as you respect the equal rights of others to do the same." is really extremely blinkered and short sighted !! Finally re. "this is the negative concept of rights & is the correct one." - one is tempted to add to the starting 'tics' - hubristic !
This Randian blindness to 'no man is an island' ; 'am I my brother's keeper' ; 'together we are stronger' and to the very notion of 'society' itself - let alone 'socialism' is as amusing as it it is alarming. Indeed, 'denialist' - may well be another appropriate attempted neologism !!
Reading your copy/pasted Bastiat comment and the one glaring thought that comes to mind for those who may see that we are individuals only amongst a wider society - is that Bastiat's world is a perfect world where all men are equal, equal in intelligence, equal in morals, equal in ethical rigour etc. It is a utopian society really and quite impractical. You idealise a state of mind and expect progress towards it. Politically, I could be described as a secular, humanist, left-libertarian Socialist and I look to societal and individual Rapid Evolution - R:Evolution, if you will - or even if you won't !!!
Finally, again I refer you to this forum-posted article, thread and appended links (in ascending order) for insights into 'Libertarian Socialism', whose most famous proponent in The U$A is Noam Chomsky :
Despite our apparent differences, I nevertheless honour the good works that you do as per your blog, which I had previously saved to my favourites and which I found and looked at again. I own a copy of Jeremy Scahill's 'Blackwater' and admire that ex 'DemocracyNow!' producer's work very much too.
veritas vos liberabit ...
Thank you for reading my blog & complimenting my activism.
I've never understood the canards like "blindness to 'no man is an island' ; 'am I my brother's keeper' ; 'together we are stronger' and to the very notion of 'society' itself ". Libertarians have been very clear that we are about people interacting on a voluntary basis. Matter of fact, it's the only way to live in society. I applaud everyone that wants to help the less fortunate. Go ahead, just don't turn to organized robbery (taxation) & call distributing the loot charity.
That you "never understood the "canards" like 'blindness to 'no man is an island' ; 'am I my brother's keeper' ; 'together we are stronger' and to the very notion of 'society' itself" - really speaks volumes !!
Democracy involves subordinating financial dynamics to serve economic balance & growth for all - and Taxing Rentier Income or keeping basic monopolies in the public domain. Untaxing' or privatizing the property income only 'frees' it to be pledged to the banks, to be capitalized into larger loans. Financed by debt leveraging, asset-price inflation increases rentier wealth while indebting the economy at large. The economy shrinks, falling into negative equity.
Please consider that every economy is planned and that his traditionally has been the function of 'the government'. Relinquishing this role under the slogan of “free markets” leaves it in the hands of banks. Yet the planning privilege of credit creation and allocation turns out to be even more centralized than that of elected public officials. To make matters worse, the financial time frame is short-term hit-and-run, ending up as asset stripping. By seeking their own gains, the banks tend to destroy the economy. The surplus ends up being consumed by interest and other financial charges, leaving no revenue for new capital investment or basic "social" spending.
This is why relinquishing the policy control to a creditor class rarely has gone together with economic growth and rising living standards. The tendency for debts to grow faster than the population’s ability to pay has been a basic constant throughout all recorded history. Debts always mount up exponentially, absorbing the surplus and reducing much of the population to the equivalent of debt peonage.
In more modern times, democracies have urged a strong state to tax rentier income and wealth and when called for, to write down debts. This can be done most readily when 'The State' itself creates the money and credit. It is done least easily when banks translate their gains into political power. When the banks are permitted to be self-regulating and given veto power over government regulators, the economy is distorted to permit creditors to indulge in the speculative gambles and outright fraud that have marked the past decade. "Libertarian" economics has been cited repeatedly by Banksters & it 'enables' them !!!
radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ...
When are we going to hear Obamas plan to improve the economy? I mean our GDP is at 1.3%, unemployment at 7%, 26 million people out of work, 47% of the population collecting some kind of assistance from the government and we are only generating a little over 100,000 jobs a month when we need closer to 300,000.
So tell me does anyone know of Obamas plan to get the economy moving? If we keep going at the present pace, it will be another 4 years and we will be at 6% or maybe 10% - who knows.
But you can be sure we will never reach 5% in the next 4 years with Obamas present course of action. Anybody know how he plans to improve these numbers?
he has no plan but his media boosters only think Romney should provide his detailed plan. Pretty strange, eh?
energy independence
make stuff to export
Lyan "the zombie-eyed granny-starver"!
There is no Known Connection between what a Politicans Says and what he does. Focus. The VP are not an Issue, they are a decoration. The debates themselves are fairly meaningless: They influence some of the voters based on the Presidential Contenders appearance.
You know what YOUR issues are. Likely they will not be addressed in any Debate. Politics is little more than a magician or an actor on stage.
1) First the Politican says one thing during the Campaign.
2) Second the Politicans says something else after the Election.
3) Third He/She does something completley different when he acts.
There is no Known Connection between what a Politicans Says and what he does.
I agree completely with your conclusion.
Thanks TitusMoans
Though I thought Biden did better, it was more from age and experience. He could have been much better if only he did not show so much disrepect for his opponent in such a forum. He gave away points. It was actually very annoying.
Biden looked like a Jack Ass grinning and snorting and interrupting.
Absolutely no manners or debating etiquette.
It really became hard to watch.
What's funny about a tie?
So now we know, Romney and Biden are rude as hell. Good.
What'd you think of the debate moderator?
She obviously is a personal friend of O, no woner he came to her wedding. She interrupted Ryan only slightly less the Sniden did. She also scolded Ryan for interrupting twice as much as she did Sniden and helped him along when he started going Uncle Joe on answers. I am sure independents saw through the liberal bias.
Well that was the impression I got also, that there was a Dem bias. I was only half listening but it was more apparent, I think, on the abortion issue. Which to me as a moderate conservative, is a ridiculous issue on which to base a national election.
Yeah, guess why OWS doesn't like my posts. I find social issues like abortion and gay marriage as non issues when picking a prez. I highly doubt a Romney victory would bring an end to Roe v Wade. Highly doubt he wants to have it over turned,. It's a personal issue to him and he would not try to enforce it. Also doubt it is really on his agenda, given all the more pressing economic and foreign policy issues, Social issues should not be politicized. That's what Hillaryt's "village" is for.
The Arab Spring has turned into the opening act for a 21st Century Crusades type world war. Islam v everyone else. Scary.
Their whole agenda is juvenile. We can and should grant gays a right of equity in the form of Civil Unions but we can never grant a perfect equality; in the same way that Gay central films will always draw a lesser box office, the general public will never fully accept Gay public display as "normal." And it's not equality they want; it's superiority which grants endless freedom, with no regard whatsoever for the heterosexual family with children. This is not possible or we will cease to exist as a people.
Abortion is a ridiculous issue; Roe versus Wade will never be reversed. Because it was the correct decision based on years of research. And who cares anyway? How many working or middle class women have abortions? Very few... because most consider the act both personally repugnant and selfish. And yet it would appear many educated women are not intelligent enough to discern truth from BS; is this possible? Well, yea, I suppose it is - so the question arises, should these women be educated at all; should we grant them a voice?
The idea of interdependence, meaning unlimited access to the wealth of others, while promoting the "independence" of women as dependent on the state collective of our wealth, is absurd.
It just goes on and on... the Dem party has become the party of degenerates; they are a minority which speaks for minorities in an attempt to gain, not an acceptance already granted, but superiority.
The same is true of African Americans. And the Caucasian, white as Hispanic, illegals.
In addition to this, which serves only to aggrevate the divides we have sought to bridge as a matter of tolerance in the form of "equality," everything about Obama, his cabinet, his advisers, and their socially domestic, fiscal, and foreign policy is a disaster.
I disagree!
I have often wondered what government might look like if we recreated it in the form of Doodlebop Space Invader; a lot have - hence the "60s."
Well that doesn't seem like a very useful exercize.
Did you come up with the opinions you listed above during the same wonderings?
I think I was born with these opinions; those who promote interdependence as universal care giving are not caregivers; they are takers attempting to persuade or coerce through a societal mandate.
I'd fall over backwards beside myself if a single Dem just once stepped up to pledge all he or she has to aid another whom he or she has never met as a matter of societal concern; has a single Chomsky for example ever pledged his millions to the cause for which he advocates of a societal general welfare? Not one Dem... ever.
Your challenge is as specious as the opinions you were “born with.”
It would be believable in a world where being rich meant having twice the average and only 2% of the population might be considered made. But if ten times the average wealth is possessed, on average, by ten percent of the population, then the only way 90% of us can live is by borrowing from them and submitting to debt slavery to them.
So you see, it has nothing to do with bleeding hearts who care for others. Recovering the wealth the rich have taken from the community is about our survival!
Good point. The personal insult takes away from your point (but true).
Peace
You are to stupid to insult
Are you one of "those"?
A middle class psycho-pseudo-intellectual who wants to aid the poor by sucking the oxygen out of them?
I have bad news for you - the poor leave no descendants; they "daughter out" within three generations - always.
By the way, Ms. Enlightenment, udacity is not a word, and I can't help but wonder, is this is not a spin off of Obama's "audacity"?
If all you can muster is labels and can't contest the facts or even understand what's written, how can anyone help you out of the mindhole you've dug yourself into?
I don't know anything about udacious. But http://www.udacity.com/ is an online University offering courses taught by Stanford, UVA and other professors, mostly in computer science.
And that has about as much to do with the concentration of wealth that's destroying America as anything I've seen you post. You really are an idiot, aren't you? But forgive my stupidity. If you knew you were a moron you would be on the way to a cure.
Udacity is not a word. And it doesn't take a professor to figure that out, or, to take a spin on the net in search of...
I say again (and repeat myself):
"Elimination of the rich from the gene pool is about our survival . . . you fucking moron!"
Is this the mythical "udacity" you speak of? Because if it is I'm very happy he's in your class and not mine.
He's most likely just another sockpuppet of GypsyKing/Underdog/Prometheus etc invented so he can talk to himself all day.
Ohh... "elimination of the rich from the gene pool is about survival... you fucking moron."
Are you sure that translates to "sockpuppet"?
Or is it more like a hateful state of drug induced dementia?
Could very well be. Just saying that to come across as a calm, benevolent, modern day Plato-GK must invent some hateful, demented posers to condescend to.
And to whom might you be referring? As a calm, benevolent, 'GK'?
He was a helluva writer, btw.
PS: You've done some great posts here.
No one supports "interdependence as universal care giving". That's you exaggerating what progressives support in order to paint them dishonestly as extreme. That view is not reality.
No dem (or anyone else) must or should give up all there posessions. That's just more exaggerated suggestion to try and dishonestly paint decent generous people as hypocritical and selfish.
What everyone should do is pressure our govt to spend out tax dollars on helping our fellow Americans in need, rather than spending our tax dollars on corp welfare, and more bombs we could ever need.
Ok then... if not all, then what percentage do you believe is appropriate? How much do you think I owe to other people to justify my own existence in the world as a White, of European ancestry, American?
I pay approximately 45% of my current income in taxes - enough to quite literally to support two families of four anywhere in the South - how much more do I owe these fellow Americans in need? Really, the American people want to know, how much you think we owe.
Is it even American, to be healthy, and capable, and "in need" of your neighbor's money?
We're talking about using taxes to help our fellow Americans in need. I'm not discussing what you "owe" anyone.
Since the cost of helping our fellow Americans is such a small portion of the budget I think you're 45% tax # is disengenuous. I think probably 5% of our taxes goes to helping our fellow Americans in need, And I think that is fine.
I think the amount we give much more in corp welfare, Are you outraged at that?. I think the govt is ripped off by health ins & other providers more than that amount. I think there is more waste/fraud/abuse in the massive military budget than that.
Any outrage over that.? Or is it just the small amount we use to help people in need?
Yea, I am outraged by that. My impression is that as much as 50% of all dollars taken from you and me, "collectively," goes directly to corruption in some form. And I think your 5% figure may even be too high.
Well I don't lnow what the corruption number is but of course I'm against all corruption. The biggest part of the budget, & there has always been great waste/fraud/abuse there.
So I would encourage we start there.
oh-kay
I thought she was very good.
I was only half listening... but I wondered if she hadn't interjected too much.
Virtually every poll has Ryan way ahead. Biden was a blustery old fool.
I like politicians who are blustery old fools but that's just me.
I don't know who could be called a winner there (I know America is the real loser) but Biden just looked like a rude asshole with no self control.
"virtually every" = 1 of 2
who else besides CBS & CNN polled as of 12:20am ?
maybe this is where ryan won:
politifact judgement:......BIDEN.....ryan
true / mostly true.................43...........32
false / mostly false..............29........... 36
pants on fire.........................5............. 8
Bidens arrogance got the best of him, especially by women who hate that
SNL is about to tear this one up.
The only base I wish Joe had touched:
"What were the three most important things that you learned from the Russian atheist ayn rand?" or
"Why did you insist that your staff read the Russian atheist ayn rand?"
I do find the CNN number VERY strange
Biden did laugh at ryan's lies and desperately tried not to use the word LIE.
"I do find the CNN number VERY strange "
Of course you do. You haven't grasped the concept that not everyone blindly follows/loves Obama and Biden like you.
I guess you find these numbers downright kafkaesque.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16423/presidential-polls-2012-rasmussen-polls-real-clear-politics-put-romney-ahead-of-obama-after-vp-debate
[romney: money cut from medicare
obama: bring down the price of a pill
the spinning wheel