GWB under attack by his own party

thats not what modern republicans stand for at all. not sure what you mean. ayn rand would hate the modern republican party. she would probably despise george bush.

 

"being linked to" is not the same as "being".

also wrong.

this artcle links to an NYtimes article. and that article says:

" diet soda can never be technically addictive"

you might try to make posts where more than 0% of your statements are correct.

 

Bull crap, it sounds exactly like the Republican party platform to me. Have you not heard the vitriol from Republican candidates about the role of government? They make it sound as if they despise all form of government unless it pertains to defense, law enforcement or the courts. Republicans are all about de-regulation for industry, ending unemployment insurance and cutting social programs that assist the poor.

Ayn Rand might not have personally cared for the current Republican party; writers are often displeased with the offspring of their writings. That said, you know as well as I that the conservative movement in this country worships the principles that she outlined in her writings. I don't see why you cannot see the correlation between the philosophy that she promoted in her literary works and that of the current conservative movement in this country.

 

the reason is because i am not a partisan hack. i am able to be critical of both parties. i dont blindly side with one. republicans are also big government loving idiots, and i am happy to call them out for it. thats because i have an actual philosophy rather than just taking a partisan side for the sake of being partisan.

again, the opposite of being blindly partisan is having actual principles. so your argument about rand is stupid because, whether you agree or not, has principles and a philosohpy. she is an objectivist, not a republican.

again, if you think bush and the modern republicans are enacting policies than ayn rand would favor, then i dont think you have done enough reading about what ayn rand stands for.

then in what sense is she or her followers a partisan hack? you are making the exact point that disproves your original statement.

 

No you do not. If you did you wouldn't contradict yourself so much, Martin.

Wrong again. Name one "partisan hack" by your definition and I will then show you someone who will tell you, Republican or Democrat, that they have actual principles. You act like you are the last, lone non-partisan, principled purist left in the world. Everyone has principles that guide them, whether it be politically, spiritually, economically, etc. Please don't try and convince me that you are the only one.

I never said anything about GWB. I said that the current Republican party, which, in case you have not noticed, has taken a decidedly massive right turn philosophically falls in line with the philosophy that Rand promoted with her literature. Do they also do some hypocritically big government things like pushing a constitutional amendment to define marraige or ban certain medical procedures? Yep, I will agree with you there.

I am plenty familiar with the Rand's literature so you can quit pretending that you are the only person who has ever read her books. This doesn't have to work both ways you know.....the Republicans can claim her literature as a mantle without her approval. Ayn Rand might not approve of them, but they approve of her. It wouldn't be the first time that a group of people attached themselves to a principle put forth in a literary work without the approval or promotion of the author.

 

right.

again, there is a reason some people are critical of obama for stupid nonsense like his birth certificate, or people taunt bush for his malapropisms. it is because they have chosen a side and they side with teir side without thinking. i do not do that.

not the only one in the world. but one of very few people who actually has a cogent philosophy. yes, i am smarter and far better an analyzing this sort of thing than almost anyone else.

well, to be fair, most people dont adhere at all to their own philosophies our have any consistency whatsoever. the republican party is a great example, they are a bunch of idiotic schmucks who claim to be for small government, even as they grow it.

ron paul is an example of a fella that is principled. i do not agree with his principles, but he does have a consistent view that is based on his convictions. most politicians just do/say whatever to get elected. and most regular folks just follow politicans blindly or construct their philosophies around the way they want to think of themselves.

both are basically totally unprincipled.

what is wrong with you? you are explaining exactly why they are unprincipled. you are repeating back to me what i am telling you.

is she hypocritally into big government like the republicans you just described?

right and the reason she would not approve is that republicans and most party faithful people are just idiot hacks who dont actually adhere to principles, like YOU JUST SAID.

so again, if our pal frogleg was an actual follower of rand it would put him at odds with the republicans wouldnt it, thereby not making him a partisan hack, but a fella who, like ron paul, follows a set of actual principles.


i am not claiming any of these principles are correct or noble, simply that they are not the same as partisan hackery where you choose a side and mock the other for no reason other than you are an idiot.

 

You do not really understand Ayn Rand/Objectivism. How could "the Republicans" attach themselves to this sacrilege:

Objectivism rejects "God" as an incoherent concept and rejects any idea of the supernatural.

Rand defended a woman's right to abortion

Objectivism supports gay rights and is not opposed to gay marriage.


A quote from the Ayn Rand Institute: (on Government)

Objectivism advocates a strictly limited form of government: a republican system that has only those powers and takes only those actions required to secure our rights to freedom from force. There must be a military force for defense against external enemies. There must be a system of legislation and law courts to establish the law and to adjudicate disputes in which force might be used. And there must be a system of enforcement of the law such as the police, to make sure the law is a social rule, not empty words.

No country today scrupulously respects rights, and indeed many people do not understand what rights really are. A limited, rights-respecting government would have no welfare system and no forced pension-paying system like Social Security in the U.S. It would not have agencies with open-ended and vaguely defined regulatory powers. There would be no anti-trust law, nor zoning laws, nor anti-drug laws. This does not mean that a free society would not have unemployment insurance or pensions, or that it would not have distinctive neighborhoods or public campaigns to reduce the use of dangerous narcotics. But if people wanted any of these things, they would have to organize and undertake them voluntarily, through individual contracts and free associations. And no one would have the right to enforce his preferences on someone else through violence. Free debate and rational persuasion would have to be the means a social organizer would use, and the result would be a system of freedom, in which each person would choose for himself the best course in life and would suffer or enjoy the consequences of his choices.

 

I love how frog quotes Ayn Rand who SMOKED CIGERATTES yet he can't vote for Obama why oh yeah he smokes. Why don't you admit you are racist?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand]Ayn Rand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Just look at the pic don't read any of the article. The pic speaks for itself.

A heavy smoker, Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974

She smoked you can NOT use her or respect her.


Smoking | Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Individualism | The Atlas Society

 

i think you should try some of those "cigerattes" (is that italian?) to calm you down.

also we know you are just joking and dont really accuse folks of being racist because they are not fans of obama.

 

it is because those people are ignorant, not unprincipled. those people would tell you that it is because of their principles that they believe that Obama was not born as a US citizen or that GWB had something to do with plotting 9/11. i don't like these people, from either side, any more than you do but they are not without motivation.

The only thing that this statement proves is your own elitist, arrogant view of yourself. To claim that you are one of a select few remaining individuals who are guided by some moral compass that the rest of us poor bastards missed is ridiculous.

I am NOT disagreeing with you! Damn, you are hard headed and must not have good reading comprehension skills. I am trying to highlight the level of hypocrisy in the Republican party right now. At the same time they are promoting Rand's ideas of reduced government and abandonment of the welfare state they are also promoting the very Theocratic ideas of amending our constitution with legislation that would define marraige and ban certain medical procedures for women that they perceive to be sinful.

If our pal Frogleg is an actual follower of Rand it makes him no different than you or I or anyone else. Being a follower of Rand and a being a political hack are not mutually exclusive. I am sure Frogleg has his own set of principles, many of which I am sure are guided by his readings. Regardless, it does not make his principles right or wrong nor does it mean he cannot also, at the same time, be a hack.