"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[Uncensored2008]

Smash, I threw this up to another drone, who went and hid;

You can take a crack at it...

Here is a small quote from Rand;

{"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil? }

Where is she wrong, drone?

 

[Bern80]

Just barely. Started it when in college but never finished it. Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why. It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over. All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.

Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?

Fine, if you're only talking about the self-contained world of the book. If you're trying to make a statement about the real world, however, you'd have to do better than basing it on caricatures.

That was a predictable response. Who ever said the book was based on anything going on in the real world? I ask again, what is WRONG with the heroes of the book? Or is it that you think their opposition is misrepresented?

 

[Smash_Hits]

The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept. Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.

Taxes are a required part of society; without them, we wouldn't have roads, schools, postal service, or any other government services. To claim that these would be taken up by the private sector is idiotic. Private roads, for example. The roads would have (a) be heavily taxed (people need to make a living, and are also dicks) and (b) the areas to which no one wants to travel (e.g. poor areas) would not receive enough traffic to be worth roads. This will happen with everything listed above, not just roads. Of course, you will have some magnanimous individuals, but the majority will not (Roark, Taggert, Galt, to name a few).


The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly. The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working; the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing). The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.


My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational." The idea that objectivists see their ideas as absolute truths is philosophically ignorant; there are no truths in the world (if you are interested, read about the Munchhausen Trilemna; it is a logic problem which states that "truth" is nonexistent, because every individual truth relies on another truth to be considered true). Someone as supposedly rational and intelligent as Rand should have been able to figure this out.



Is this simple enough for you, nimrod?

(Be aware that these are just my objections to Objectivism in a nutshell)

 

[washamericom]

The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept. Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.

Taxes are a required part of society; without them, we wouldn't have roads, schools, postal service, or any other government services. To claim that these would be taken up by the private sector is idiotic. Private roads, for example. The roads would have (a) be heavily taxed (people need to make a living, and are also dicks) and (b) the areas to which no one wants to travel (e.g. poor areas) would not receive enough traffic to be worth roads. This will happen with everything listed above, not just roads. Of course, you will have some magnanimous individuals, but the majority will not (Roark, Taggert, Galt, to name a few).


The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly. The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working; the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing). The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.


My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational." The idea that objectivists see their ideas as absolute truths is philosophically ignorant; there are no truths in the world (if you are interested, read about the Munchhausen Trilemna; it is a logic problem which states that "truth" is nonexistent, because every individual truth relies on another truth to be considered true). Someone as supposedly rational and intelligent as Rand should have been able to figure this out.



Is this simple enough for you, nimrod?

(Be aware that these are just my objections to Objectivism in a nutshell)

this is why obama's neosociaistic earthfueled idealism caught fire, then failed.

 

[rightwinger]

The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept. Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.

Taxes are a required part of society; without them, we wouldn't have roads, schools, postal service, or any other government services. To claim that these would be taken up by the private sector is idiotic. Private roads, for example. The roads would have (a) be heavily taxed (people need to make a living, and are also dicks) and (b) the areas to which no one wants to travel (e.g. poor areas) would not receive enough traffic to be worth roads. This will happen with everything listed above, not just roads. Of course, you will have some magnanimous individuals, but the majority will not (Roark, Taggert, Galt, to name a few).


The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly. The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working; the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing). The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.


My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational." The idea that objectivists see their ideas as absolute truths is philosophically ignorant; there are no truths in the world (if you are interested, read about the Munchhausen Trilemna; it is a logic problem which states that "truth" is nonexistent, because every individual truth relies on another truth to be considered true). Someone as supposedly rational and intelligent as Rand should have been able to figure this out.



Is this simple enough for you, nimrod?

(Be aware that these are just my objections to Objectivism in a nutshell)

this is why obama's neosociaistic earthfueled idealism caught fire, then failed.

Washie....

You still here?

I thought you sulked away when this thread failed?

 

[Bern80]

The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept. Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.

That isn't what objectivism says. In a free market it is the consumer who is supposed to regulate businesses.

The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly. The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working; the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing). The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.

It is not a lie. I just isn't and never was what you libs want to be. The american dream, unlike what you libs believe, is not something that will just happen to you. You do have to work at it. The american dream simply says there is no limit to your potential. It does not and never has garunteed anyone a certain outcome. The above is nothing more than the most convenient excuse EVER for poor people to not hold themselves accountable for their outcomes. You are just plain factually wrong here. The source of the wealth generated from generation to generation is not the result of cash transfers from generation to generation.

My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational." The idea that objectivists see their ideas as absolute truths is philosophically ignorant; there are no truths in the world (if you are interested, read about the Munchhausen Trilemna; it is a logic problem which states that "truth" is nonexistent, because every individual truth relies on another truth to be considered true). Someone as supposedly rational and intelligent as Rand should have been able to figure this out.

Unfortunately that is a bit of paradox, it isn't possible for one to say there is no such thing as absolute truth because such a statement is a statement of absolute truth itself.

But humor me. How would you invalidate Rand's perceived truth that you are not entitled to take anything of mine that I have not agreed to give you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept.

Really?

Say, have you ever noticed a symbol on electrical appliances that has UL in a circle? Have you ever heard of ISO-9001? AS9100? Have you ever hear of the IEEE?

Would you care to examine the safety and overall effectiveness of a private organization such as Underwriters Laboratories versus a government bureaucracy like the FDA?

Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.

Ah yes, the divine right of Kings - the ultimate argument of every mindless socialist.

Saying that a people can govern themselves is to deny that God has imbued our rulers with special wisdom..

Ultimately your argument is that people must be ruled by their betters.

Taxes are a required part of society; without them, we wouldn't have roads, schools, postal service, or any other government services.

Show me where Rand demands that all taxes be abolished?

Your straw man reveals the depth of your ignorance on the subject.

To claim that these would be taken up by the private sector is idiotic. Private roads, for example. The roads would have (a) be heavily taxed (people need to make a living, and are also dicks)

Toll Roads, Sparky. Pay when you use them. Do you believe airlines should be owned and run by the government? Why or why not?

Again, show me where Rand advocated the privatization of city and county roads? Ayn Rand wasn't Murray Rothbard - they didn't particularly like each other.

The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly.

Right, Bill Gates was born a billionaire as was Steve Jobs... Oh, wait...

LOL, fucking socialists...

The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working;

Yeah, 1776 to present, just two generations... Fascists are so smart....

the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing).

Look, I realize that you didn't quite make it through high school, but the fact is that the lowest socio-economic elements in America have more creature comforts, cars, air conditioning, TV's - Cable, computers than the average person in most of the world.

The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.

That's why Americans are streaming over the border into Mexico....

My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational."

I can understand that, you are utterly irrational.

Most socialists are.

Is this simple enough for you, nimrod?

You're a simpleton, no question about that.

(Be aware that these are just my objections to Objectivism in a nutshell)

Objects revealing not just your ignorance of Objectivism but your general ignorance.

 

[konradv]

Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?

Fine, if you're only talking about the self-contained world of the book. If you're trying to make a statement about the real world, however, you'd have to do better than basing it on caricatures.

That was a predictable response. Who ever said the book was based on anything going on in the real world? I ask again, what is WRONG with the heroes of the book? Or is it that you think their opposition is misrepresented?

If you're trying to present a philosophy which is applicable to the real world, but present it in a book in which isn't based on anything in the real world, why should anyone pay attention? Remember, the title of the thread says the move will "change the face of American politics". How can that happen, if it's not based on anything real? Another contradiction in Objectivism, IMO, we're supposed to believe we can make a real change in the world based on something unreal!!!

 

[Bern80]

Fine, if you're only talking about the self-contained world of the book. If you're trying to make a statement about the real world, however, you'd have to do better than basing it on caricatures.

That was a predictable response. Who ever said the book was based on anything going on in the real world? I ask again, what is WRONG with the heroes of the book? Or is it that you think their opposition is misrepresented?

If you're trying to present a philosophy which is applicable to the real world, but present it in a book in which isn't based on anything in the real world, why should anyone pay attention? Remember, the title of the thread says the move will "change the face of American politics". How can that happen, if it's not based on anything real? Another contradiction in Objectivism, IMO, we're supposed to believe we can make a real change in the world based on something unreal!!!

What is unreal about it? What did the characters DO in the book that is impossible to do in the real world?(space age metals not withstanding). What about your life would be negative if you for example became an objectivist?

 

[Big Fitz]

Just barely. Started it when in college but never finished it. Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why. It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over. All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.

Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?

In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.

In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.

Our objections aren't that the characters in the book are bad.

Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.

Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.

Such is the nature of FICTION.

Is this what passes for critical thinking in your world?

Really??

 

[Bern80]

Just barely. Started it when in college but never finished it. Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why. It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over. All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.

Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?

In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.

In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.

Our objections aren't that the characters in the book are bad.

Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.

Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.

Such is the nature of FICTION.

And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things should be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.

 

[Smash_Hits]

Really?

Say, have you ever noticed a symbol on electrical appliances that has UL in a circle? Have you ever heard of ISO-9001? AS9100? Have you ever hear of the IEEE?

Would you care to examine the safety and overall effectiveness of a private organization such as Underwriters Laboratories versus a government bureaucracy like the FDA?

While there are several organizations that apply regulations to businesses in the private sector, which is a good thing, they can't accomplish everything. They can't actually FORCE a business to do something. They also can't cover everything; in the end, you'll need some government regulations.

I was also speaking more of ethics regulations; I should have made myself clearer. Sorry about that.

Ah yes, the divine right of Kings - the ultimate argument of every mindless socialist.

Saying that a people can govern themselves is to deny that God has imbued our rulers with special wisdom..

Ultimately your argument is that people must be ruled by their betters.

Sounds pretty good to me. There will always be people better suited to lead than others. In a perfect society, there would be no need for rulers. Unfortunately; this isn't the case. We need to be led by somebody, and that person should be as moral and ethical as possible.

Show me where Rand demands that all taxes be abolished?

Your straw man reveals the depth of your ignorance on the subject.

Ayn Rand on Taxation

Sounds pretty anti-tax to me.

Right, Bill Gates was born a billionaire as was Steve Jobs... Oh, wait...

LOL, fucking socialists...

So because TWO people have been able to rise up through the system proves that it works? How about no... think of the millions that CAN'T. I'm not talking about people rising from the middle class to the top, I'm talking about the people that are born into poverty.

Yeah, 1776 to present, just two generations... Fascists are so smart....

Capitalism has stopped working, or at least, it has STARTED to stop working. There are numerous articles on this on the web.

Did you know that in 2007 the top 1% of America owned ~43% of all the wealth... that sounds totally fair, right? (This essay is pretty good if you need more info: Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Look, I realize that you didn't quite make it through high school, but the fact is that the lowest socio-economic elements in America have more creature comforts, cars, air conditioning, TV's - Cable, computers than the average person in most of the world.

Uhhh, so? The fact of the matter is that they are still heavily disadvantaged, with very little opportunity to make their situation better.

That's why Americans are streaming over the border into Mexico....

See my above response.

I can understand that, you are utterly irrational.

Most socialists are.

When did I say I was a socialist? All I am is someone who isn't an adult with the maturity level of a toddler.

 

[washamericom]

The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept. Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.

Taxes are a required part of society; without them, we wouldn't have roads, schools, postal service, or any other government services. To claim that these would be taken up by the private sector is idiotic. Private roads, for example. The roads would have (a) be heavily taxed (people need to make a living, and are also dicks) and (b) the areas to which no one wants to travel (e.g. poor areas) would not receive enough traffic to be worth roads. This will happen with everything listed above, not just roads. Of course, you will have some magnanimous individuals, but the majority will not (Roark, Taggert, Galt, to name a few).


The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly. The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working; the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing). The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.


My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational." The idea that objectivists see their ideas as absolute truths is philosophically ignorant; there are no truths in the world (if you are interested, read about the Munchhausen Trilemna; it is a logic problem which states that "truth" is nonexistent, because every individual truth relies on another truth to be considered true). Someone as supposedly rational and intelligent as Rand should have been able to figure this out.



Is this simple enough for you, nimrod?

(Be aware that these are just my objections to Objectivism in a nutshell)

this is why obama's neosociaistic earthfueled idealism caught fire, then failed.

Washie....

You still here?

I thought you sulked away when this thread failed?

10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.

 

[rightwinger]

this is why obama's neosociaistic earthfueled idealism caught fire, then failed.

Washie....

You still here?

I thought you sulked away when this thread failed?

10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.

Fake second birth certificate? Get with the times bro...

We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?

I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy

 

[editec]

Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?

In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.

In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.

Our objections aren't that the characters in the book are bad.

Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.

Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.

Such is the nature of FICTION.

And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things should be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.

I responded to the question "What are her heros doing wrong"

I added why I thought that people who see her book as a model (Like GREENSPAN did for example) for how the world ought to be are either idiots or liars.

 

[konradv]

Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?

In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.

In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.

Our objections aren't that the characters in the book are bad.

Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.

Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.

Such is the nature of FICTION.

And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things should be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.

If those things were really happening, then opposition to it would be well placed. We're supposed to believe that the movie will "change" America according to the OP. Why would we go in that direction over a fictional account that doesn't apply to our situation? You seem to want it both ways, a plan for the future when it points out some things that are true, but fiction when it describes things that aren't. Which is it?!?!

 

[sitarro]

Washie....

You still here?

I thought you sulked away when this thread failed?

10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.

Fake second birth certificate? Get with the times bro...

We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?

I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy

If you believe that the ridiculously bad work that Obama flashed as real, you are the perfect useful idiot that populates the democrat party in such large numbers. I bet you would have a hard time with chads too.

 

[konradv]

10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.

Fake second birth certificate? Get with the times bro...

We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?

I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy

If you believe that the ridiculously bad work that Obama flashed as real, you are the perfect useful idiot that populates the democrat party in such large numbers. I bet you would have a hard time with chads too.

Still don't think it's real? Well, TOUGH SHIT that's all you're getting. This birther nonsense is just a waste of our time.

 

[Smash_Hits]

Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?

In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.

In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.

Our objections aren't that the characters in the book are bad.

Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.

Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.

Such is the nature of FICTION.

And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things should be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.

You conservatives have no idea how fiction works. Seriously, read a fucking book.

 

[rightwinger]

10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.

Fake second birth certificate? Get with the times bro...

We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?

I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy

If you believe that the ridiculously bad work that Obama flashed as real, you are the perfect useful idiot that populates the democrat party in such large numbers. I bet you would have a hard time with chads too.

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner

We have another birther.....get with the times, we need to attack Obama on the phony bin Laden raid

Beats moon landing