Ayn Rand is right. There is no higher state than

[grunt11b]

Moving money from one pocket to the other does not constitute a decrease my friend. Dropping my federal payroll tax $50 a pay and increasing my medicare tax $50 a pay does not constitute a tax decrease. He simply just moved the money and hoped noone would notice.

What fantasy world are you living in??

Obamaland unfortunately.

 

[grunt11b]

He cut the payroll tax and gave many business tax cuts. A good deal of the stimulus was tax cuts. Of course you "want to stay on topic" because your point was completely incorrect.

By the way, Reagan raised taxes eventually.

Moving money from one pocket to the other does not constitute a decrease my friend. Dropping my federal payroll tax $50 a pay and increasing my medicare tax $50 a pay does not constitute a tax decrease. He simply just moved the money and hoped noone would notice.

You will never have to fight for a medicare increase in your life. Republicans promised it.

I guess you will never understand that because the left has spent so much money in the last 2-1/2 years that increasing anything Right now would be a bad idea right?

 

[Fyght]

Moving money from one pocket to the other does not constitute a decrease my friend. Dropping my federal payroll tax $50 a pay and increasing my medicare tax $50 a pay does not constitute a tax decrease. He simply just moved the money and hoped noone would notice.

You will never have to fight for a medicare increase in your life. Republicans promised it.

I guess you will never understand that because the left has spent so much money in the last 2-1/2 years that increasing anything Right now would be a bad idea right?

I think you fuck frogs.

 

[Sallow]

Moving money from one pocket to the other does not constitute a decrease my friend. Dropping my federal payroll tax $50 a pay and increasing my medicare tax $50 a pay does not constitute a tax decrease. He simply just moved the money and hoped noone would notice.

What fantasy world are you living in??

Obamaland unfortunately.

Okay..

WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?

Because..it hasn't.

It's scheduled to happen on some income brackets in 2013, those making over 200K. And this wasn't nothing to do with the payroll tax.

 

[grunt11b]

You will never have to fight for a medicare increase in your life. Republicans promised it.

I guess you will never understand that because the left has spent so much money in the last 2-1/2 years that increasing anything Right now would be a bad idea right?

I think you fuck frogs.

And I think with that I just won the debate with you.

 

[Fyght]

I guess you will never understand that because the left has spent so much money in the last 2-1/2 years that increasing anything Right now would be a bad idea right?

I think you fuck frogs.

And I think with that I just won the debate.

We were debating?

What were you debating me on? And why did you have a cheerleading squad?

 

[Cuyo]

People who call themselves conservatives today are not looking for common sense or common decency solutions for this nation. Solutions that would benefit their families and their community. They are ideologues who want to dismantle any shred of COMMunity and replace it with SELF interest?

That is not 'conservatism', that is narcissism.


A TRUE liberal...

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future.

There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."

President John F. Kennedy
Remarks at Amherst College
October 26, 1963

But that's just it, if JFK where on the Democrat ballot today he would not be electable. The Democrat party has shifted so far left these days Kennedy would be too conservative to be electable today.
Ask yourself this, would you vote JFK today? I know I would.

Are you insane?

 

[Sallow]

You will never have to fight for a medicare increase in your life. Republicans promised it.

I guess you will never understand that because the left has spent so much money in the last 2-1/2 years that increasing anything Right now would be a bad idea right?

I think you fuck frogs.

And you wonder why people "don't debate you"? Not once did grunt11b insult you.

What the fuck is your problem?

 

[Sallow]

I think you fuck frogs.

And I think with that I just won the debate.

We were debating?

You were..and he did.

 

[Fyght]

And I think with that I just won the debate.

We were debating?

You were..and he did.

On what?

 

[grunt11b]

I think you fuck frogs.

And I think with that I just won the debate.

We were debating?

What were you debating me on? And why did you have a cheerleading squad?

I was talking politics, you where talking about fucking frogs. I just assumed you had nothing more to add to the conversation.

 

[Big Fitz]

Rand was a reactionary hack.

The dogma of ‘Objectivism’ is predicated on the bizarre perception of a society without structure, a utopian fantasy that naively fails to take into consideration the need of social contracts, legal doctrine, and the inevitable manifestation of institutions.

Modernity rendered ‘Objectivism’ irrelevant before its inception.

The opposite poles of the political discussion are anarchy and police state or some such demonstration of free agents and total control.

Rand stakes out a position of desiring less governmental control. In her books, she exhorts the value of contracts when Roarke invokes the contract to support the destruction of the buildings that break the rules defined within it.

She exhorts the power of the individual to shape society in Atlas Shrugged when the movers and the shakers form a utopia and society falters in their absence.

She attacks the inefficiency and corruption of any political sytem, be it industry or government, that supresses the individual and denies the strength and integrity of individual thought.

I don't understand why Liberals say that they like these ideas, but hate Rand's ideas. Could it be that they do not understand what they are thinking?

everything ayn rand wrote was to justify her own selfishness, including the affair she carried on in the face of her husband.

she believed in nothing but the self. THAT is why anyone with a brain who actually understands the workings of society and the social contract, would reject her idiocy out of hand. i'd also point out that at the end she was very happy to take her government checks.

just sayin

Selfishness is not a sin, nor an aggregate wrong. It is the very definition of 'Freedom of Association" writ large scale on all relationships, be they personal, social or financial. The same way a child hates to be told to play with the neighbor child who's a bully or mean or whatever the child finds distasteful, so is it the right of every individual to decide who and how they associate with the world.

If a person decides live a life where they do not give charitably, that is their choice, and they have full right to make that choice. Unfortunately their choice has been usurped by the government using taxes taken from them by force to give charitably without that same person's permission. This thereby forces an association, all be it anonymously to the recipient of the largess.

How would any liberal or atheist like being forced to support local religious charities or patron arts that are radically anti-abortion or pro-death penalty or any of a dozen hot button issues? Often, they are for government largess as long as the money goes to support things they like and agree with, but hate it when it goes to something they disagree with. It's a fundamental hypocrisy.

I also find it interesting that you justify your irrational hate for Rand by citing her public affair on her husband. Isn't it a liberal credo since Clinton that what happens regarding sex is both none of your business, nor something to be judged for? Or is this just another case of a double standard lest no standards be kept?

As for the 'in the end' argument, did not the government sieze by force some of her own wealth to support people in the manner that she was then supported (assuming this questionable report is true, and it IS debatable for the source was a disgruntled former employee who wrote a 'tell all'?) Does not the woman have a right to get back some of what was taken from her against her will? Don't we all have a 'right' to that money that could have been better used elsewhere by us?

In interviews, Rand did not speak out against charity, but emphasized the fact that charity is an act of free will, with it's own personal dynamics. It can not be demanded by the recipient with any claim of entitlement, for it is not theirs, They did not work for it by themselves to thereby prompt any semblance of a right to the work and profit of another. To advocate that anyone has a right to charity is an endorsement of slavery. This is also the fundamental flaw of Marxist theory. To say that need denotes right is to say that because someone has a need they have the right to take it from another who may be doing better, because their need is great. A southern plantation owner had a powerful need to pick cotton on his huge farm. Did that mean he had the right to enslave hundreds if not thousands and force them to do it without compensation or against their free will? No! Not for one second. But yet the same people who would agree with me on that, would also say that a doctor must work away to save the life of another for free because of that same powerful need.

Randian philosophy, when you boil down all the essence of it is literally a struggle against slavery, and a declaration to the supremacy of the individual right to be, do say and own your own life and property. Nobody has a right to take from you what you will not give freely or gain compensation from.

How can anyone disagree with a philosophy that states "you are no one's slave in any form"?

But so many do and never realize what they are truly endorsing.

oh... ps. The fact that the op author is acting like some Objectivist rabid reactionary shitbox that snaps at any hand that does not agree 100% with his view of Objectivism does not change the fundamental truths about Objectivism, nor Rand's philosophy of the right to be oneself in every way.

 

[Fyght]

No on debated me on anything.

 

[grunt11b]

People who call themselves conservatives today are not looking for common sense or common decency solutions for this nation. Solutions that would benefit their families and their community. They are ideologues who want to dismantle any shred of COMMunity and replace it with SELF interest?

That is not 'conservatism', that is narcissism.


A TRUE liberal...

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future.

There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."

President John F. Kennedy
Remarks at Amherst College
October 26, 1963

But that's just it, if JFK where on the Democrat ballot today he would not be electable. The Democrat party has shifted so far left these days Kennedy would be too conservative to be electable today.
Ask yourself this, would you vote JFK today? I know I would.

Are you insane?

Nope, JFK was almost as conservative as Reagan. He would in no way be elected today by the Democrat party, he would fit in more as a Republican in this day and age. Why do you ask?

 

[grunt11b]

I guess you will never understand that because the left has spent so much money in the last 2-1/2 years that increasing anything Right now would be a bad idea right?

I think you fuck frogs.

And you wonder why people "don't debate you"? Not once did grunt11b insult you.

What the fuck is your problem?

Thanks salo, repped up!

 

[Fyght]

And I think with that I just won the debate.

We were debating?

What were you debating me on? And why did you have a cheerleading squad?

I was talking politics, you where talking about fucking frogs. I just assumed you had nothing more to add to the conversation.

You were talking about fucking frog and I said "whut"?

 

[Google]

People who call themselves conservatives today are not looking for common sense or common decency solutions for this nation. Solutions that would benefit their families and their community. They are ideologues who want to dismantle any shred of COMMunity and replace it with SELF interest?

That is not 'conservatism', that is narcissism.


A TRUE liberal...

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future.

There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."

President John F. Kennedy
Remarks at Amherst College
October 26, 1963

But that's just it, if JFK where on the Democrat ballot today he would not be electable. The Democrat party has shifted so far left these days Kennedy would be too conservative to be electable today.
Ask yourself this, would you vote JFK today? I know I would.

Are you insane?

By all indications based solely on JFK's words and actions he resembles more of a modern Republican than a Democrat.

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

Could you imagine a modern Democrat saying such things?

Now, again based solely on policy Nixon far more resembles a modern Democrat than a Republican. He furthered the federal government's authority and set the ground work for the modern federal bureaucries that feed off of the tax payers of this country like a blood lusting parasite.

The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 3, 1970, after Nixon submitted a reorganization plan to Congress and it was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.

United States Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

I think you fuck frogs.

And you wonder why people "don't debate you"? Not once did grunt11b insult you.

What the fuck is your problem?

Thanks salo, repped up!

I like heated debate with people passionate about their views. Keeps you sharp.

But what I don't like is personal insults. You are pretty good about that.

 

[Big Fitz]

Do you understand how democracy works?

Yes I do. Think of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

So you hate our form of government?

Moron... we're a republic with checks and balances that keep the sheep from ending up rare on a platter with mint jelly.

Can someone find a passing surgeon to split her head open with a spade, shovel in a brain and at least give us a temporary fix?

 

[grunt11b]

We were debating?

What were you debating me on? And why did you have a cheerleading squad?

I was talking politics, you where talking about fucking frogs. I just assumed you had nothing more to add to the conversation.

You were talking about fucking frog and I said "whut"?

Just let it go dude.