"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[NYcarbineer]

Why does it matter? are you saying an atheist can't be a good Amrican?

Many right wing christians would say that. I didn't.

So you speak for christians now?

It's well known that many rightwing christians assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?

Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.

If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.

Good luck.

My question is dead on your statement not so much

How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?

A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.

For a guy who spends a good deal of his time here defending the 2nd AMENDMENT, it's odd you would also argue that the Constitution can't be amended.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.

If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.

Good luck.

My question is dead on your statement not so much

How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?

A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.

For a guy who spends a good deal of his time here defending the 2nd AMENDMENT, it's odd you would also argue that the Constitution can't be amended.

When did I say it can't be amended? I did ask how many times it has been amended in the past 80 years. Meaning it's hard to do because of the constitutional restraints. So are you going to answer the question?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Many right wing christians would say that. I didn't.

So you speak for christians now?

It's well known that many rightwing christians assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

And what does that have to do with Ayn Rand? Christians aren't as judgemental as you think, at least those people who truely are Christians.

 

[MaggieMae]

How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?

Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.

If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.

Good luck.

My question is dead on your statement not so much

How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?

A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.

You mean the First Amendment granting free speech is just bullshit?

 

[MaggieMae]

Jokey Fakey? You remain the largest JOKE on these boards.
this is true... where has dante been ?

ratified by three quarters of the states, including the ones that think they can secede from the union.

Yep, which djepend on democratic votes. You are a joke right along with T and bigreb. You guys always, I mean always, walk into the wall.

These people who don't know how the Constitution gets amended are the same ones who pretend to have read Atlas Shrugged. Uh huh...

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, T, you are a babbler. That is what far right wacks pretending to be responsible conservative or libertarians do, like you: they babble. Ronnie Reagan would have nothing to do with your kind.

I am glad you do not think I and most others who call themself a conservative are like you. That means we are doing the right thing.

Jokey/Fakey is NO Conservative by any stretch.

You extremists need to come up with a different definition of yourselves. How about just Rebels? Because you're not conservatives. You think only of yourselves and what can be gained for yourselves. You first, country last. And yes, Ronald Reagan would not approve.

 

[MaggieMae]

You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.

I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.

Even true Libertarians aren't that whacko. Libertarians don't call for the elimination of anyone left of center or all social policies to be accomplished by armed force if necessary.

 

[MaggieMae]

You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.

I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.

*I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this patheitic?

Excuse me, but there are over 400 posts in this thread, and I see very few distancing themselves from Jake, nor anyone else who presents a credible argument against the theories of Ayn Rand.

 

[MaggieMae]

Just like the guy who shot Gabby Giffords.

Who shares the values of big fitz and his gang. The shooter is not a liberal or socialist. He is a weirdo, just like the far far right wack gang here.

The guy was a LEFTIST...dumbass. And I say WAS because he's done. /Story.

He visited conspiracy theory sites and believed in a New World Order coming to town, a conspiracy theory that's been around for decades, but recently revised and piqued the interest of unread idiots when Democrats gained control and especially since Obama became president. How is that "leftist"????

 

[MaggieMae]

And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die. Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people. Or die. that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.

The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person. Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam. At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest. Most aren't.

So, your premise is flawed.

I happen to agree with you. But the unanswered question still remains, what to do about it? The only workable solution is to slowly wean those unproductive people OFF their support systems. And it won't happen overnight because there are too many unknowns: High unemployment, children who are unaware of the positions of their parent(s) who rely on life-sustaining programs, etc.

First end duplication of effort. Second, start cutting redirect funds into efforts to ween them off the dole, mostly by adding work requirements to even receive government money. Then, slowly start cutting roles AND department size simultaneously.

The second part is the hard one. Getting government to work towards it's own obsolesence.

In the same time, provide small tax breaks to people who volunteer or donate money to PRIVATE charities of any type that do not receive government funds to cover those who are really in need due to disability or other very specific circumstance till private organizations come about.

The problem with eliminating dolists is to make poverty survivable but uncomfortable. Even benjamin Franklin pointed that out. So here's one extreme way.

You need housing? Fine. Don't expect an apartment. Here's a dorm room at a government Dorm you will be sharing it with another person, bathroom's down the hall. TV? Sure. Shared common room. Meals prison cafeteria style, hope you like what they cook, seconds are available. Manditory job training if you're not working. If you are working, you pay some rent. Children? They'll be attending a school in the day, and have their own dorms. Parents can visit them as needed. No booze, no cigarettes, no drugs. Internet is in the public room by appointment.

It's somewhat degrading, I agree. Humiliating to live in such a circumstance, but That is the point. They are fed, clothed, sheltered and offered a little bit of privacy, and they will get job training if needed, or put into a work program. No lingering about during the day waiting for meals. You want them motivated to leave it as soon as possible and getting their own life, home and ability to stand on their own.

And like I said... this is one extreme example, that 150 years ago, actually would have been quite common in places like England after the poverty laws and Metropolitan Police force, and Peeler reforms kicked in. A modern Dickensian aspect I guess and that could only be countered by tight regulation of the system... and even better still if you have it contracted out to private management companies that have performance based incentives to run a good facility.

Just thinking outside the box.

I actually agree with some of your input. I just wish you would stop aligning yourself with the loons. I might actually get to like you on an intellectual level.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.

If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.

Good luck.

My question is dead on your statement not so much

How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?

A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.

You mean the First Amendment granting free speech is just bullshit?

The original question since you want to take what I said out of context is,
How many amendment have we had in the last 80 years?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who shares the values of big fitz and his gang. The shooter is not a liberal or socialist. He is a weirdo, just like the far far right wack gang here.

The guy was a LEFTIST...dumbass. And I say WAS because he's done. /Story.

He visited conspiracy theory sites and believed in a New World Order coming to town, a conspiracy theory that's been around for decades, but recently revised and piqued the interest of unread idiots when Democrats gained control and especially since Obama became president. How is that "leftist"????

The New World Order is not a conspiracy Bush SR. has mentioned it a few times. The U.N. will be the means that will make it happen. The concept will be played like this to stop war the world must be unified and have one world law, with one leadership head. Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?

 

[8537]

Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?

really? They're sure doing a poor job of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My question is dead on your statement not so much


A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.

You mean the First Amendment granting free speech is just bullshit?

The original question since you want to take what I said out of context is,
How many amendment have we had in the last 80 years?

None. How does that prove that the United States is not a representative democracy, which, in case anyone missed it or forgot it,

is the point of this conversation.

bigreb claims that the US is not a representative democracy. He is clearly wrong, but, in the grand tradition of modern conservatism, is too obstinate and brainwashed to admit it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you speak for christians now?

It's well known that many rightwing christians assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

And what does that have to do with Ayn Rand? Christians aren't as judgemental as you think, at least those people who truely are Christians.

What about Conservative Christians who want to amend the Constitution to effectively ban all abortion?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.

I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.

*I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this patheitic?

Excuse me, but there are over 400 posts in this thread, and I see very few distancing themselves from Jake, nor anyone else who presents a credible argument against the theories of Ayn Rand.

I'm still waiting for them to present something credible, care to make a suggestion?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?

really? They're sure doing a poor job of it.

What happens when the government prints more money than it's GDP is worth?

 

[Big Fitz]

I happen to agree with you. But the unanswered question still remains, what to do about it? The only workable solution is to slowly wean those unproductive people OFF their support systems. And it won't happen overnight because there are too many unknowns: High unemployment, children who are unaware of the positions of their parent(s) who rely on life-sustaining programs, etc.

First end duplication of effort. Second, start cutting redirect funds into efforts to ween them off the dole, mostly by adding work requirements to even receive government money. Then, slowly start cutting roles AND department size simultaneously.

The second part is the hard one. Getting government to work towards it's own obsolesence.

In the same time, provide small tax breaks to people who volunteer or donate money to PRIVATE charities of any type that do not receive government funds to cover those who are really in need due to disability or other very specific circumstance till private organizations come about.

The problem with eliminating dolists is to make poverty survivable but uncomfortable. Even benjamin Franklin pointed that out. So here's one extreme way.

You need housing? Fine. Don't expect an apartment. Here's a dorm room at a government Dorm you will be sharing it with another person, bathroom's down the hall. TV? Sure. Shared common room. Meals prison cafeteria style, hope you like what they cook, seconds are available. Manditory job training if you're not working. If you are working, you pay some rent. Children? They'll be attending a school in the day, and have their own dorms. Parents can visit them as needed. No booze, no cigarettes, no drugs. Internet is in the public room by appointment.

It's somewhat degrading, I agree. Humiliating to live in such a circumstance, but That is the point. They are fed, clothed, sheltered and offered a little bit of privacy, and they will get job training if needed, or put into a work program. No lingering about during the day waiting for meals. You want them motivated to leave it as soon as possible and getting their own life, home and ability to stand on their own.

And like I said... this is one extreme example, that 150 years ago, actually would have been quite common in places like England after the poverty laws and Metropolitan Police force, and Peeler reforms kicked in. A modern Dickensian aspect I guess and that could only be countered by tight regulation of the system... and even better still if you have it contracted out to private management companies that have performance based incentives to run a good facility.

Just thinking outside the box.

I actually agree with some of your input. I just wish you would stop aligning yourself with the loons. I might actually get to like you on an intellectual level.

LOL... thanks I think? But sorry, I still remain staunchly anti-collectivism, pro-individual, pro-personal responsibility, pro-small government, pro-privatization and a constitutional originalist.

I'm surprised we agree on this issue for the most part.

 

[Kalam]

Apparently the film is being released in multiple installments. I hope that one movie will be dedicated entirely to the 70-page John Galt speech so the film series can be just as pontifical and prolix as the novel.