Why I Could Never Be GOP or Libertarian

[Quantum Windbag]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just admitting that thinking is too hard.

Ron Paul supporters think his ideas will benefit them? They like the rest of us would become the working poor under his every man for himself phylosophies. And they suggest they are religious? While at the same time following Ayn Rand? That's a laugh.

Rand was clear that her philosophy, known as objectivism, was incompatible with that of Jesus. For her, any system that required one individual to live for others and follow anything beside his or her own self-interest was immoral. For Jesus, any system or behavior that does not take into account living for others and acting on their behalf is immoral. Christians should take Ayn Rand’s words as a warning. To follow her and her vision, one must give up Christ and his cross.

You heard it, libertarians, go-Galters, and Tea Party rabble rousers: If you cheer Rand’s self-worshipping objectivist ideals, you cheer with the devil.

Read more: Good Christians Don

Ron Paul supporters think freedom is more important than getting benefits from government policies.

Come to think of it, so do I, and I don't even support Paul.

As for Ayn Rand, why bring her up at all?

Did I mention her? Do I care that she was an atheist? Do I follow her philosophy? (The answer to all those questions is no.)

Thanks for proving my point though.

 

[Crackerjack]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

Paul Ryan, the father of a Republican budget initiative that seeks to destroy Medicare and Social Security has continually invoked the name of Ayn Rand as his philosophical mentor and guide. Many other Republicans have do so too. They are embracing a philosophy which, according to Ayn Rand herself, is one of selfishness and is against all forms of Spirituality. The question any thoughtful Americans must ask themselves is: “Is this the America we want?”

And how do they get evangelicals to go along with them is beyond me.

Its a very selfish every man for himself mentality.

And Libertarians don't believe in the Commons. What are the Commons?

The Commons are resources that are owned by all of us. That includes the Grand Canyon, oil rights, power companies, roads, public airwaves, schools, etc.

Here is how they think. Libertarians think if we all own the land on which our sheep graze, we will each add one too many sheep until we destroy the land for future generations. That We the People can't manage the commons.

Libertarians think that if one person owns the land and charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

I disagree.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just admitting that thinking is too hard.

Sssshhh, he's on a mission.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ron Paul supporters think his ideas will benefit them? They like the rest of us would become the working poor under his every man for himself phylosophies. And they suggest they are religious? While at the same time following Ayn Rand? That's a laugh.

Rand was clear that her philosophy, known as objectivism, was incompatible with that of Jesus. For her, any system that required one individual to live for others and follow anything beside his or her own self-interest was immoral. For Jesus, any system or behavior that does not take into account living for others and acting on their behalf is immoral. Christians should take Ayn Rand’s words as a warning. To follow her and her vision, one must give up Christ and his cross.

You either fail to comprehend, or are deliberately misrepresenting Rand. Rand believed that the COERCION of people to live for others is immoral. Whether that coercion is by the state or by the church, forcing people to live against their own interests is repugnant.

Rand had no problem with those who chose to live in religious cloisters, the point being free will versus force.

I agree with Rand that religion is irrational, including the religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, I also agree with Rand that people are free to be irrational, provided that they don't force their beliefs on others through law.

You heard it, libertarians, go-Galters, and Tea Party rabble rousers: If you cheer Rand’s self-worshipping objectivist ideals, you cheer with the devil.

Objectivism is the brain child of Ayn Rand. Libertarianism is the brain child of Murray Rothbard. They are two different philosophies. Your muddled thinking and misinterpretations have merged them into a single thought process.

 

[sealybobo]

Ron Paul supporters think his ideas will benefit them? They like the rest of us would become the working poor under his every man for himself phylosophies. And they suggest they are religious? While at the same time following Ayn Rand? That's a laugh.

Rand was clear that her philosophy, known as objectivism, was incompatible with that of Jesus. For her, any system that required one individual to live for others and follow anything beside his or her own self-interest was immoral. For Jesus, any system or behavior that does not take into account living for others and acting on their behalf is immoral. Christians should take Ayn Rand’s words as a warning. To follow her and her vision, one must give up Christ and his cross.

You either fail to comprehend, or are deliberately misrepresenting Rand. Rand believed that the COERCION of people to live for others is immoral. Whether that coercion is by the state or by the church, forcing people to live against their own interests is repugnant.

Rand had no problem with those who chose to live in religious cloisters, the point being free will versus force.

I agree with Rand that religion is irrational, including the religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, I also agree with Rand that people are free to be irrational, provided that they don't force their beliefs on others through law.

You heard it, libertarians, go-Galters, and Tea Party rabble rousers: If you cheer Rand’s self-worshipping objectivist ideals, you cheer with the devil.

Objectivism is the brain child of Ayn Rand. Libertarianism is the brain child of Murray Rothbard. They are two different philosophies. Your muddled thinking and misinterpretations have merged them into a single thought process.

Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan and Paul Ryan all follow Ayn Rand.


Rand was clear that her philosophy, known as objectivism, was incompatible with that of Jesus. For her, any system that that required one individual to live for others and follow anything beside his or her own self-interest was immoral. For Jesus, any system or behavior that does not take into account living for others and acting on their behalf is immoral. Christians should take Ayn Rand’s words as a warning. To follow her and her vision, one must give up Christ and his cross.

You heard it, libertarians, go-Galters, and Tea Party rabble rousers: If you cheer Rand’s self-worshipping objectivist ideals, you cheer with the devil.

Read more: Good Christians Don

 

[ThinkCritically]

Rand was clear that her philosophy, known as objectivism, was incompatible with that of Jesus. For her, any system that that required one individual to live for others and follow anything beside his or her own self-interest was immoral. For Jesus, any system or behavior that does not take into account living for others and acting on their behalf is immoral. Christians should take Ayn Rand’s words as a warning. To follow her and her vision, one must give up Christ and his cross.

You heard it, libertarians, go-Galters, and Tea Party rabble rousers: If you cheer Rand’s self-worshipping objectivist ideals, you cheer with the devil.

"Pay unto ceasar that which is ceasar's", is about the only thing Jesus ever said about government. Remember the Jews were being persecuted and murdered by the Romans, and they all wanted Jesus to be their militant leader to overthrow the government, but Jesus had no interest in governments.

Are you a Christian? or are you just trying to ruffle the feathers of other christians?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan and Paul Ryan all follow Ayn Rand.

None of them "follow" Ayn Rand. Reagan "admired" Rand, that is a far cry from "follow." The policies of his administration were a vast difference from Objectivist methods.

Rand was clear that her philosophy, known as objectivism, was incompatible with that of Jesus.

You have zero knowledge of Objectivism or what it entails, and I doubt you have any knowledge of Jesus or Christianity.

For her, any system that that required one individual to live for others and follow anything beside his or her own self-interest was immoral. For Jesus, any system or behavior that does not take into account living for others and acting on their behalf is immoral.

The key is "required." When any group coerces people to live for the benefit of another, whetherr the Catholic church forcing women into convents or a Fascist ruler forcing people to buy the products from well connected corporations such as Blue Cross, then it is immoral.

Your claim regarding Jesus is utter bullshit, based on your partisan hackary, with no relation to the Christian religion.

Christians should take Ayn Rand’s words as a warning. To follow her and her vision, one must give up Christ and his cross.

What of Obamabots? Can one truly worship and serve Obama without giving up Christ? You can't effectively worship two gods. It's either Obama or Jesus. We know that you worship Obama, but Christians should shun your little tin god if they are to follow Christ.

You heard it, libertarians, go-Galters, and Tea Party rabble rousers: If you cheer Rand’s self-worshipping objectivist ideals, you cheer with the devil.

Yawn.

Is this the best that Dear Leader's minions can come up with? Banal and half-witted...

 

[kaz]

You heard it, libertarians, go-Galters, and Tea Party rabble rousers: If you cheer Rand’s self-worshipping objectivist ideals, you cheer with the devil

Liberals touting government claiming Jesus is one of them always crack me up. Where is the passage that following Herod and the Romans would have been good as long as the "majority" voted for them? Where are the passages about passing the buck to rich fucking bastards who have more money then you do? Where is are the passages that you have no more responsibility once you elect a politician to take care of your charity for you? Can you even find the bible in the bookstore?

 

[Avatar4321]

You heard it, libertarians, go-Galters, and Tea Party rabble rousers: If you cheer Rand’s self-worshipping objectivist ideals, you cheer with the devil

Liberals touting government claiming Jesus is one of them always crack me up. Where is the passage that following Herod and the Romans would have been good as long as the "majority" voted for them? Where are the passages about passing the buck to rich fucking bastards who have more money then you do? Where is are the passages that you have no more responsibility once you elect a politician to take care of your charity for you? Can you even find the bible in the bookstore?

Doesn't make much sense does it? Christ was all about personal responsibility. He encouraged people to assume their responsibilities, not push them up onto others.

 

[sealybobo]

It's a magnificent time to be alive -- if you're a giant corporation, that is.

Big U.S. companies have emerged from the recession more productive, more profitable, flush with cash and less burdened by debt. Meanwhile, one out of every six Americans lives below the poverty line, one of every ten is out of work, and one of every five homes are worth less than the loans that secure them? But oh to be rich and incorporated.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decreed in the infamous Citizens United case that under the U.S. Constitution, corporations are the same as people and spending money is a form of free speech. And corporations now have the right, under the First Amendment, to use money to buy public officials and purchase elections. And they don't have to disclose where the money came from. Could have come from a corporations that is owned by Al Queda or China for all we know. So now foreign countries can even influence our politics through their corporations. Even my conservative friends realize this is a bad idea. Who doesn't? Besides Romney.

Big business' were screwing people way before Citizens United of course. But that decision has fundamentally altered the balance of power between citizens and corporations in the courts, Congress and the executive branch.

Philosophers, scientists and science fiction writers have long predicted that the moment would come when artificial creatures, created by humans, would become more intelligent than humans. Ever see Terminator? But no one would have guessed that 2010 would become the date it all started. The date when corporations would become more politically powerful than humans.

Harvey Rosenfield: Corporations Gone Wild

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's a magnificent time to be alive -- if you're a giant corporation, that is.

SNIP the mindless cut&paste

Say sillybonobo, when in the course of human history have the commoners, the average workers, enjoyed more creature comforts and more goods in return for an hours work than in American, now?

Oh, you won't answer - you're a mindless, partisan fuck, posting what your masters tell you to post.

 

[sealybobo]

It's a magnificent time to be alive -- if you're a giant corporation, that is.

SNIP the mindless cut&paste

Say sillybonobo, when in the course of human history have the commoners, the average workers, enjoyed more creature comforts and more goods in return for an hours work than in American, now?

Oh, you won't answer - you're a mindless, partisan fuck, posting what your masters tell you to post.

I will answer! In great detail I will answer. But you won't understand. I'm wasting my time but here goes.

And clearly you haven't read anything I've ever said if you are asking me this question. Because I've answered it before. The answer is that there has never been a middle class as big or prosperous as the American Middle class from the NEW DEAL to date. From FDR until now. But it was liberal policies that created the middle class. Labor Laws, Unions, Civil Rights. It was Capitalism too but back then we manufactured things. Today its Wallstreet cronie unregulated free market corporate capitalism. That doesnt work.

But from the minute the New Deal was passed, the rich have been trying to chip away at it. Perfect example is they want to do away with social security and medicare. They helped create a strong middle class too. Both liberal programs.

No coincidence that Since Reagan, as union membership went from 35% of our workforce down to about 12%, our wages haven't gone up one bit. Not if you factor inflation in. But the rich have never been richer.

Did I answer your question? What you don't understand is what created the middle class. It wasn't free markets. That will only produce a small rich class, small merchantile class and a large working poor class that they use to call the Rabble. Charles Dickens? Tiny Tim? That is utopia to Republicans. They call them the good old days. They do not think the last 60 years were great. We made too much. And they do not understand that the same things that caused the recession and led to the New Deal are the same things happening today. The rich got too greedy. Time for our government to defend us from them. Even Thomas Jefferson warned us about power, money and greed.

I loved the 90's. Even poor people had money in the 90's. Remember there were even jobs Americans wouldn't do? But the GOP didn't like unemployment that low. Greenspan even admitted it. I'm not going to go find it for you because I've posted it a million times. Either open your ears and start waking up or don't. I suspect you won't.

So why did the GOP send all those jobs overseas? Didn't they know it would ruin the economy? Clearly they did not. Or they wanted to ruin the economy so they could push this radical agenda they've forced on us.

 

[sealybobo]

It's a magnificent time to be alive -- if you're a giant corporation, that is.

SNIP the mindless cut&paste

Say sillybonobo, when in the course of human history have the commoners, the average workers, enjoyed more creature comforts and more goods in return for an hours work than in American, now?

Oh, you won't answer - you're a mindless, partisan fuck, posting what your masters tell you to post.

Sounds a lot like what you guys were saying in 2007.

Let me remind you where we were in 2007:

Since Bush has been president:

•over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
•nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
•median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
•three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
•three million American workers have lost their pensions;
•home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
•the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn't happened since the great depression;
•the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
•entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
•wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

But you said the economy was fine and to vote for McCain because you are a mindless, blind partisan fuck.

 

[ThinkCritically]

To quote Clinton...."I feel your pain" sealybobo. It is a complicated history filled with confusion and contradictions...If you are lucky you will arrive on the other side with your mind still left, and the ability to see things as grey, not so black and white. You will have a foundation but it won't be a dogma.

 

[sealybobo]

To quote Clinton...."I feel your pain" sealybobo. It is a complicated history filled with confusion and contradictions...If you are lucky you will arrive on the other side with your mind still left, and the ability to see things as grey, not so black and white. You will have a foundation but it won't be a dogma.

What do you mean I will arrive on the other side? Do you mean on the GOP side? How is that seeing things as grey?

I'm already there. And if you are there too, you'll see it when debating me. But if you are just another righty who's voting for Romney over Obama and you want to try to convince me that Democrats are "just as bad", or that Romney is better for me, you are only going to fail.

 

[ThinkCritically]

I'm already there. And if you are there too, you'll see it when debating me. But if you are just another righty who's voting for Romney over Obama and you want to try to convince me that Democrats are "just as bad", or that Romney is better for me, you are only going to fail.

Not a fan of Romney, Obama, or any other bought out politician. So it sounds like we stand on common ground there, but we might disagree on other issues (not sure yet). See...its grey...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I will answer! In great detail I will answer. But you won't understand. I'm wasting my time but here goes.

And clearly you haven't read anything I've ever said if you are asking me this question.

Most of what you post is cut&paste from the hate sites. Frankly, if I cared what ThinkProgress is spewing, I'd log on to their site.

Because I've answered it before. The answer is that there has never been a middle class as big or prosperous as the American Middle class from the NEW DEAL to date. From FDR until now.

One flaw with your claim - it's false.

The purchasing power of Americans fell after the New Deal. Note, I am NOT saying this is because of the New Deal, it was due to the Depression. However, the New Deal prolonged the Depression.

But it was liberal policies that created the middle class. Labor Laws, Unions, Civil Rights. It was Capitalism too but back then we manufactured things. Today its Wallstreet cronie unregulated free market corporate capitalism. That doesnt work.

Unregulated?

If what you claim is true, shouldn't the purchasing power of the middle class be declining? In fact, it is expanding at an astounding rate. Offshore manufacturing has vastly improved the economic power of middle and lower class Americans.

Does it anger and depress you that the lowest quintile of American earners can now afford a Brand New Car? This occurred during the GW Bush era, for the first time in history.

But from the minute the New Deal was passed, the rich have been trying to chip away at it. Perfect example is they want to do away with social security and medicare.

Who will retire with more money. A worker who trusted social security for 30 years, or one who put the same amount in a 401K - even with the 2009 Obama market crash?

No contest, the market investor will have triple what the SS recipient gets. Why are you leftists so anti-worker?

They helped create a strong middle class too. Both liberal programs.

They, and the abominable snowman had about the same contribution.

No coincidence that Since Reagan, as union membership went from 35% of our workforce down to about 12%, our wages haven't gone up one bit. Not if you factor inflation in. But the rich have never been richer.

Utter falsehood. Shall we play the hours game? I do this with my students.

In 1980, before Reagan, how many hours of labor did it take to purchase the following at minimum wage?

A color TV
The lowest priced new car
A 1,000 sq ft house (Average house size was 980 at the time)
A loaf of white bread
A pound of hamburger
A sirloin steak
A stereo system
A long distance call from NY to California
A coach airline ticket from NY to California
A gallon of milk
A gallon of gas

Okay, I'll make it easy, which of the above took less hours of labor in 1980 than they do today?

If you answered, "all of them took more hours of labor in 1980" then you may pass the final, if not, I suggest you redouble your study efforts.

Did I answer your question? What you don't understand is what created the
middle class. It wasn't free markets.

What a silly comment.

That will only produce a small rich class, small merchantile class and a large working poor class that they use to call the Rabble.

LOL

So, in the days where the state defined the fortunes of each, there was a large a prosperous middle class - you know, under the Feudalism you promote? (Which you do, despite your ignorance of what you promote.)

Or is it that 99% of the inhabitants lived in dire poverty to support a 1% nobility?

Charles Dickens? Tiny Tim? That is utopia to Republicans. They call them the good old days. They do not think the last 60 years were great. We made too much. And they do not understand that the same things that caused the recession and led to the New Deal are the same things happening today. The rich got too greedy. Time for our government to defend us from them. Even Thomas Jefferson warned us about power, money and greed.

In fact, it was the emergence of markets, the ability of people to trade value for value, that created not only the middle class, but industrialization and the formation of forward movement in economies.

What you promote is nothing less than a return to dark ages economics, dissolution of the renaissance and the progress of society in the last thousand years.

I loved the 90's. Even poor people had money in the 90's. Remember there were even jobs Americans wouldn't do?

You mean there was a promotion of invasion by illegal aliens? I believe Obama continues that.

But the GOP didn't like unemployment that low. Greenspan even admitted it. I'm not going to go find it for you because I've posted it a million times. Either open your ears and start waking up or don't. I suspect you won't.

Funny, what was the average unemployment rate under Bush amortized across his entire term? What about with Obama?

So why did the GOP send all those jobs overseas?

ROFL

Why do you mug people in the park?

Didn't they know it would ruin the economy? Clearly they did not. Or they wanted to ruin the economy so they could push this radical agenda they've forced on us.

Your idiocy is laughable.

An education would do wonders for you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Listening to everything the GOP and Libertarians have to say, I have to say I viamently disagree with the direction they want to take America. They are a very selfish group.

You've confused "selfish" with "expect people to be self-reliant and accept personal responsibility for their actions".
This confusuon may be deliberate, but thus far you have not struck me as someone capable of that degree of cleverness, so I'll suppose it is honest.

But then, you likely also disagree with those tenets as well, so that particular point is just as likely moot.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Most of what you post is cut&paste from the hate sites. Frankly, if I cared what ThinkProgress is spewing, I'd log on to their site.

Yes like all conservatives you don't care about reality

------Because I've answered it before. The answer is that there has never been a middle class as big or prosperous as the American Middle class from the NEW DEAL to date. From FDR until now.------

One flaw with your claim - it's false.

The purchasing power of Americans fell after the New Deal. Note, I am NOT saying this is because of the New Deal, it was due to the Depression. However, the New Deal prolonged the Depression.

The recession ended right after the New Deal started. In fact the period during the New Deal saw the largest economic growth ever recorded in America

Unregulated?

Yep unregulated banks caused the banking crises, also unregulated utilities caused costs to increase by 30%
If what you claim is true, shouldn't the purchasing power of the middle class be declining? In fact, it is expanding at an astounding rate. Offshore manufacturing has vastly improved the economic power of middle and lower class Americans.[/quote]
Actually the wealth/income of the vast majority of Americans has been declining

Who will retire with more money. A worker who trusted social security for 30 years, or one who put the same amount in a 401K - even with the 2009 Obama market crash?

Well considered social security is 26% more efficient then 401k if they both put int he same amount of money the person getting SS would retire with more money.

They, and the abominable snowman had about the same contribution.

Medicare costs 40-50% less then private health insurance despite providing more and better quality of care

Utter falsehood. Shall we play the hours game? I do this with my students.
In 1980, before Reagan, how many hours of labor did it take to purchase the following at minimum wage?

A color TV
The lowest priced new car
A 1,000 sq ft house (Average house size was 980 at the time)
A loaf of white bread
A pound of hamburger
A sirloin steak
A stereo system
A long distance call from NY to California
A coach airline ticket from NY to California
A gallon of milk
A gallon of gas

When you include labor hours worked to purchase ALL goods you find that it takes more since 1980. But go ahead and cherry pick...

You mean there was a promotion of invasion by illegal aliens? I believe Obama continues that.

Actually the number of illegals entering the US is now near 0 (when you include illegals leaving). And depredation Under Obama has skyrocket. So nice try at lying.

Funny, what was the average unemployment rate under Bush amortized across his entire term? What about with Obama?

Yes you can blame the banking crissis/housing bubble on Obama that is if you are a dishonest dumbass

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most of what you post is cut&paste from the hate sites. Frankly, if I cared what ThinkProgress is spewing, I'd log on to their site.

Yes like all conservatives you don't care about reality

This is likely news to you, but leftist hate sites are further removed from reality than Elmo's World.

 

[ilia25]

In 1980, before Reagan, how many hours of labor did it take to purchase the following at minimum wage?

A color TV
The lowest priced new car
A 1,000 sq ft house (Average house size was 980 at the time)
A loaf of white bread
A pound of hamburger
A sirloin steak
A stereo system
A long distance call from NY to California
A coach airline ticket from NY to California
A gallon of milk
A gallon of gas

Then how can you explain this astonishing rise in the median household income:
1979: $46,074
2010: $49,445
Median Household Income History in the United States