or, just the "common man" fed up with politics as usual?
BOTH parties are getting a little "heat".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_...A2JpZ3BvbGl0aWNhbA--
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
As they should. We need to go from simmer to high in November.
i love it. I espouse the complete overhtrow of the government... In this fashion, vote all the incumbents out.
I love seeing these mealy mouth coward republicans being shown the road, Like the one in pennsylvania who has been stinking it up for too long.
I love seeing these mealy mouth coward republicans being shown the road, Like the one in pennsylvania who has been stinking it up for too long.
Yeh, now if we could get rid of barak obama, harry ried, joe biden and nancy pelosi it would be a giant step towards saving this country.
So much for the libs ignoring and minimizing the Tea Party.
Vote all incumbents out, in either party.
Vote all incumbents out, in either party.
And now, in the immediate aftermath of his much-heralded primary win, the darling, the golden boy of the Tea Party crowd, Rand Paul, has exposed himself for the ideologically confused and politically inastute doofus he really is. Paul stumbled all over himself in 'splaining his take on the 1964 Civil Rights law and related laws and it has become clear, even from his jumbled and confused explanation, that he really does sincerely believe that "private" businesses should have the right to decide who they will trade with and who they will not.
In other words, if Woolworth's still had lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina and Nashville, Tennessee, Paul argues that, under the Constitution as he interprets it, they should be permitted to refuse service to anyone, including Black Americans. To be sure, he does not believe current law allows that, and he assures us that he would never attempt to change current law. But it is clear that in his sincerely-held libertarian interpretation of the Constitution, it should be permissible for Woolworth's or any other private business to deny service to persons on the basis of race.
Sincerity is, however, not to be commended when its practical application would lead to a racist conclusion. Rand Paul has contacted the third rail of politics and deserves to be scorned, both for his political clumsiness and for his--you guessed it!
The next U.S. Senator from Kentucky will not be a Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian whattzit like Rand Paul!
In other words, if Woolworth's still had lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina and Nashville, Tennessee, Paul argues that, under the Constitution as he interprets it, they should be permitted to refuse service to anyone, including Black Americans. To be sure, he does not believe current law allows that, and he assures us that he would never attempt to change current law. But it is clear that in his sincerely-held libertarian interpretation of the Constitution, it should be permissible for Woolworth's or any other private business to deny service to persons on the basis of race.
Sincerity is, however, not to be commended when its practical application would lead to a racist conclusion. Rand Paul has contacted the third rail of politics and deserves to be scorned, both for his political clumsiness and for his--you guessed it!
The next U.S. Senator from Kentucky will not be a Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian whattzit like Rand Paul!
Theoretically, it should be the option of any business, privately owned and not funded with public monies, to decide who they wish to serve.
I can't think of any businessman or woman with any common sense who would refuse to sell to a person based upon their color or race, since their money is as good as anyone else's, and the business (in a capitalist society) should be focused on making a profit.
Your interpretation of his stumbling is clouded by the fact that he want to tag anything related to the Tea Party as racist, when there is absolutely no basis to it at all.
Paul, and his father, are correct in their assessment if this country will not take of itself, then no one is going to come in and save it for us. I do not agree with total isolationism, but Ron Paul's message is a good one, and one that should in this environment, scare the hell out of the Democrat, and Republican, parties. People are angry at the government who refuses to listen and passes trash bills that do nothing bu raise our taxes.
I can't think of any businessman or woman with any common sense who would refuse to sell to a person based upon their color or race, since their money is as good as anyone else's, and the business (in a capitalist society) should be focused on making a profit.
Your interpretation of his stumbling is clouded by the fact that he want to tag anything related to the Tea Party as racist, when there is absolutely no basis to it at all.
Paul, and his father, are correct in their assessment if this country will not take of itself, then no one is going to come in and save it for us. I do not agree with total isolationism, but Ron Paul's message is a good one, and one that should in this environment, scare the hell out of the Democrat, and Republican, parties. People are angry at the government who refuses to listen and passes trash bills that do nothing bu raise our taxes.
Libertarians always suffer placing ideology before all else. Unfortunately, it makes them appear racist, which they're not, just tone deaf to reality.
Paul should have stated ideally he desired private property rights to trump most other rights; but the goal achieved by the civil rights law trumped even that.
Paul should have stated ideally he desired private property rights to trump most other rights; but the goal achieved by the civil rights law trumped even that.
To a liberal, everyone who is not liberal is racist. That line is worn out. Rand Paul is not racist. I wonder when he announces his presidential run? He has my vote.
quote:Originally posted by Jugflier:
To a liberal, everyone who is not liberal is racist. That line is worn out. Rand Paul is not racist. I wonder when he announces his presidential run? He has my vote.
To a conservative, everyone who is not conservative is a socialist. That line wore out long ago, but the right wingnuts never abandon any mischaracterizations of those with whom they disagree.
Was Rand Paul named for the absurd ecomomic theorist, Ayn Rand? I wouldn't be surprised. Her nonsense is in many ways in line with libertarian looniness.
quote:Her nonsense is in many ways in line with libertarian looniness.
I don't consider myself to be an objectivist, but I'm guessing you object to Rand's free market idealogy, and apparently libertarian ideology as well. Care to elaborate, or just carelessly dismiss?
Also, you do realize your overindulgent use of alliteration doesn't make you sound any smarter, right?
quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:quote:Her nonsense is in many ways in line with libertarian looniness.
I don't consider myself to be an objectivist, but I'm guessing you object to Rand's free market idealogy, and apparently libertarian ideology as well. Care to elaborate, or just carelessly dismiss?
Also, you do realize your overindulgent use of alliteration doesn't make you sound any smarter, right?
Ayn Rand says greed is good. beternU says generosity is good and greed sucks.
Ayn and beternU will never agree on this matter because Ayn is now dead and in hell and beternU is alive and on Earth.
As to alliteration, I just can't help it. Like some people with an ear for music, I have an ear for language. For me to refuse to indulge it would be unnatural and would rob my readers of one of the joyous glories of the English language. I have no intent to sound "smarter," I just want to offer up a little elegant variation to the typically mundane stuff so often served up by boring drudges like you.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:quote:Her nonsense is in many ways in line with libertarian looniness.
I don't consider myself to be an objectivist, but I'm guessing you object to Rand's free market idealogy, and apparently libertarian ideology as well. Care to elaborate, or just carelessly dismiss?
Also, you do realize your overindulgent use of alliteration doesn't make you sound any smarter, right?
Ayn Rand says greed is good. beternU says generosity is good and greed sucks.
Ayn and beternU will never agree on this matter because Ayn is now dead and in hell and beternU is alive and on Earth.
As to alliteration, I just can't help it. Like some people with an ear for music, I have an ear for language. For me to refuse to indulge it would be unnatural and would rob my readers of one of the joyous glories of the English language. I have no intent to sound "smarter," I just want to offer up a little elegant variation to the typically mundane stuff so often served up by boring drudges like you.
"Ayn Rand says greed is good." Absolutely incorrect! That was "Gordon Gecko", a character from the Oliver Stone movie, "Wall Street". Yes you keep us entertained oh great one.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:
Ayn and beternU will never agree on this matter because Ayn is now dead and in hell and beternU is alive and on Earth.
While I won't contest the point that Ayn Rand is deceased, I have to ask, "How do YOU know she is in hell?" I mean did YOU get to be the judge in that case? Juuuuuust asking.......
Well, let's see. Since WWII we've had six Democrats in the Oval Office and six Republicans. We owe $12 trillion, 10% of the population of Mexico lives in the U.S. illegally, this generation is so technology dependent that you can't get change back from your dollar. So here's a thought...maybe we should try something else.
The old saying goes "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"...to which I'd add..."fool me twelve times means I'm a gullible DA.
The old saying goes "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"...to which I'd add..."fool me twelve times means I'm a gullible DA.
quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:quote:Her nonsense is in many ways in line with libertarian looniness.
I don't consider myself to be an objectivist, but I'm guessing you object to Rand's free market idealogy, and apparently libertarian ideology as well. Care to elaborate, or just carelessly dismiss?
Also, you do realize your overindulgent use of alliteration doesn't make you sound any smarter, right?
Ayn Rand says greed is good. beternU says generosity is good and greed sucks.
Ayn and beternU will never agree on this matter because Ayn is now dead and in hell and beternU is alive and on Earth.
As to alliteration, I just can't help it. Like some people with an ear for music, I have an ear for language. For me to refuse to indulge it would be unnatural and would rob my readers of one of the joyous glories of the English language. I have no intent to sound "smarter," I just want to offer up a little elegant variation to the typically mundane stuff so often served up by boring drudges like you.
I've read Rand's works and agree with her free market ideas, but am not either an objectivist or an atheist. Rand's great gift was satirizing the left. Too bad Rand Paul didn't remember Ellsworth Toohey, the oleaginous, self righteous newspaper man, who at heart was pure evil.
No where, in Rand's works, do I remember the term, "greed is good." Perhaps, you should check your epistemology!
quote:Originally posted by marksw59:quote:Originally posted by beternU:quote:Originally posted by dolemitejb:quote:Her nonsense is in many ways in line with libertarian looniness.
I don't consider myself to be an objectivist, but I'm guessing you object to Rand's free market idealogy, and apparently libertarian ideology as well. Care to elaborate, or just carelessly dismiss?
Also, you do realize your overindulgent use of alliteration doesn't make you sound any smarter, right?
Ayn Rand says greed is good. beternU says generosity is good and greed sucks.
Ayn and beternU will never agree on this matter because Ayn is now dead and in hell and beternU is alive and on Earth.
As to alliteration, I just can't help it. Like some people with an ear for music, I have an ear for language. For me to refuse to indulge it would be unnatural and would rob my readers of one of the joyous glories of the English language. I have no intent to sound "smarter," I just want to offer up a little elegant variation to the typically mundane stuff so often served up by boring drudges like you.
"Ayn Rand says greed is good." Absolutely incorrect! That was "Gordon Gecko", a character from the Oliver Stone movie, "Wall Street". Yes you keep us entertained oh great one.
Ayn Rand and Gordon Gecko are siblings under the skin. Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy most certainly equates to the concept that greed is good. I was NOT confusing her with Gordon Gecko or anyone else. I did not purport to be quoting Ayn Rand; else I would have placed "Greed is good" within quotation marks. But Google up "Ayn Rand + greed" and you will get a myriad of stuff that associates her philosophy with greed. My statement was absolutely correct! Good grief! One of the woman's books is entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness"!!!
Try these:
"For years, Rand’s message was attacked by intellectuals whom her circle labeled “do-gooders,” who argued that individuals should also work in the service of others. Her book was dismissed as an homage to greed. Gore Vidal described its philosophy as “nearly perfect in its immorality.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09...usiness/15atlas.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/...recked_the_economy__
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...fishness-396690.html
"More unfortunately, this “greed myth” (as I have called it) is often perpetuated, as it was on the cover of Newsweek, by the putative defenders of capitalism. From Ivan Boesky to the bestselling tomes of Ayn Rand, champions of capitalism have told us for decades that greed is good since it’s the great engine of capitalist progress. Even Walter Williams and John Stossel, two of my favorite free marketers, have used this argument in recent years."
http://www.american.com/archiv...d-its-not-capitalism
Wouldn't trust Gore Vidal's opinion of anything.
Again, not an objectivist, but a free market conservative.
I'll let the objectivist website speak to selfishness as a virtue:
"Moreover, the character traits of the "selfish" brute are not compatible with any human being's actual, rational interests. Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behavior. "
http://www.objectivistcenter.o...tue_Selfishness.aspx
Again, not an objectivist, but a free market conservative.
I'll let the objectivist website speak to selfishness as a virtue:
"Moreover, the character traits of the "selfish" brute are not compatible with any human being's actual, rational interests. Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behavior. "
http://www.objectivistcenter.o...tue_Selfishness.aspx
quote:Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Wouldn't trust Gore Vidal's opinion of anything.
Again, not an objectivist, but a free market conservative.
I'll let the objectivist website speak to selfishness as a virtue:
"Moreover, the character traits of the "selfish" brute are not compatible with any human being's actual, rational interests. Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behavior. "
http://www.objectivistcenter.o...tue_Selfishness.aspx
Does Ms. Rand cover that material in her book, "The Virtue of Selfishness"?
Its been years since I've read the book, but I believe the answer is yes.