How Ayn Rand Caused the GFC by Magonsdaughter

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It's an important moment in human history: whether those who live in the heart of military capitalism realize that they're been promised freedom and wealth but are delivered to slavery and poverty... or not.

In the end, capitalism is self-destructive. It can survive, but only by feeding on its members. The question is just how many more years of misery we .... and the world... will endure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:58 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's an important moment in human history: whether those who live in the heart of military capitalism realize that they're been promised freedom and wealth but are delivered to slavery and poverty... or not.

In the end, capitalism is self-destructive. It can survive, but only by feeding on its members. The question is just how many more years of misery we .... and the world... will endure.

Misery ? Hell, capitalism is the single greatest thing we've got going. No system permits nearly as much freedom, bestows anywhere near the responsibility to the people, and provides so much for so many.

You have it 180 degrees backwards.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hell, capitalism is the single greatest thing we've got going. No system permits nearly as much freedom, bestows anywhere near the responsibility to the people, and provides so much for so many.

Oh, yeah. Which is why a billion people are hungry, and 0.000000001% of the population own 50% of everything.

What a system!

Who the hell do you think you're kidding????

And do you really think that your overblown promises offer you any protection from the billions who've been screwed over? YOU might think that your rationalizations are convincing, but the real world begs to differ.

So why don't you accept the fact that you're an apologist for a system that fucks people over?

Suck it up, big boy!

Have the courage of your convictions! Accept the consequences of everything you espouse and stop trying to convince everyone that you REALLY don't deserve justice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:33 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Hell, capitalism is the single greatest thing we've got going. No system permits nearly as much freedom, bestows anywhere near the responsibility to the people, and provides so much for so many.
Oh, yeah. Which is why a billion people are hungry, and 0.000000001% of the population own 50% of everything.

What a system!

Who the hell do you think you're kidding????

Where the hell are they hungry ? Is it in places where freedom and capitalism reign? Hell no! It's where thug dictators and totalitarianism flourishes.

Quote:

And do you really think that your overblown promises offer you any protection from the billions who've been screwed over? YOU might think that your rationalizations are convincing, but the real world begs to differ.
Far more of a promise than socialism or communism. That's an easy one.

Quote:
So why don't you accept the fact that you're an apologist for a system that fucks people over?

Because it doesn't, and I'm not. You're the useful idiot for bondage and slavery.

Quote:

Suck it up, big boy!

Have the courage of your convictions! Accept the consequences of everything you espouse and stop trying to convince everyone that you REALLY don't deserve justice.

Gee, what ever could that mean? I espouse freedom , and that pisses you off. And then you go yammering about " justice " ?

That's funny.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Where the hell are they hungry ? Is it in places where freedom and capitalism reign? Hell no! It's where thug dictators and totalitarianism flourishes.

Where capitalism has put them! Not more than four weeks ago, I listed over a HUNDRED military interventions by the USA alone, where "we" installed/ propped up military dictators, thugs, oligarchs, and tyrants, because it was "good for business". Where were you? Asleep at the switch?

Do you REALLY think that sweatshops and anti-union governments just popped up spontaneously and managed to hang on without killing tens of thousands ... or hundreds of thousands... of people?

You espouse "freedom"?

Then why izzit that capitalism has caused so much death and misery for so many? How much less "free" can you be than starving or in the grave?

I don't care WHAT your rationalizations are, and I don't care what you tell yourself to make you feel alright. What counts is what really happens, not that little litany of self-justifications that you keep repeating in your head like some gorram magic spell.

I think that's why you reject looking at the real world. You're comfortable where you are. You've gotten all the benefits of system that rewards sociopathy. The thing that makes you a bit uneasy.... the thing that you can't stop worrying, like a sore tooth, is the idea that maybe- just maybe- other don't see your role as "fair". Maybe, just maybe, they decide they don't want your kind of parasitism any more. And like any good parasite, you do your best to tamp down host defenses.

Well, you keep working in on that. it's what you do best.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:56 AM

MAL4PREZ

Good post. I finally got around to reading some Ayn Rand last year (The Fountainhead) and was pretty shocked at how contrived it was. Not contrived as in bad story-telling (that would be a different discussion), but as in the message. Rand built these fictional characters in this fictional NYC just to make her own personal philosophy look good. It was so not reality. It was like a whole novel of Faux news, with the other side of the debate drawn in completely false caricature.

I can't believe people base their personal philosophies around these books. To me, it seemed more a statement of Ayn Rand's issues. (And rape fantasies. Wow, what a bizarre woman!) But it totally makes sense in terms of Goldman-Sachs.

That Rolling Stone article last year was fantastic. Someone posted it in RWED, I'm pretty sure that's where I saw it. Quite damning.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:58 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think that's why you reject looking at the real world. You're comfortable where you are.

Hey, if you're part of the .000001%, you don't have to see any of the rest!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:19 AM

America loves a winner!

The moral blindness you show towards those reasons, the actual causes of so much misery and death in recent times is bewildering.

From NAZI Germany, to Stalin's Soviet Union, and the Khmer Rouge, you gloss over those atrocities and instead focus on that which has nothing to do w/ the direct murder of millions of innocent lives. If anything capitalism has SAVED far more than the number of lives you falsely accuse and blame it of enslaving or murdering.

And spare me the subtle " when the revolution starts, you'll go first " crap. That's the very hypocritical hate speech you accuse others of engaging in, though I'd doubt you have the cognitive skills to noodle that out for yourself.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The moral blindness you show towards those reasons, the actual causes of so much misery and death in recent times is bewildering.

From NAZI Germany, to Stalin's Soviet Union, and the Khmer Rouge, you gloss over those atrocities and instead focus on that which has nothing to do w/ the direct murder of millions of innocent lives. If anything capitalism has SAVED far more than the number of lives you falsely accuse and blame it of enslaving or murdering.

Bull.

Do you have any idea how many people the United States has killed in its history? Care to take a guess? Should we start with the native Americans (1-10 million)? Slaves? (1-5 million)

Too far in the past?

How about South and Central America? (2 million, due to our puppet regimes)

Vietnam? (2 million)

Indonesia (1 million, thanks to our arms and support.)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

We're pretty good at enslaving and murdering, Rappy, just like the USSR and Hitler. We set up our very own tyrannical puppet regimes, just like the USSR: Brazil, Chile, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Philippines, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Papadopolous's military dictatorship in Greece, Franco's Spain, .... Sure, we did a good thing once (in WWII... but don't forget BTW that Russia was our ally and bore the runt of the fighting and dying. THEY defeated Hitler, not us.) But we didn't "save" so many people... we were too busy killing and enslaving them.

Quote:
And spare me the subtle " when the revolution starts, you'll go first " crap.

Nah, you won't be the first. But here's the thing:

You claim that we should all be about self-interest, right? Well, my interests are antithetical to yours. I recognize it.

And even YOU recognize it! Otherwise you wouldn't be so busy trying to convince me otherwise.

So why don't you skip the self-justification, the self-delusion, the attempted propaganda and just accept it for what it is?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:13 AM

America loves a winner!

You're too much a devote to the fake Indian, Ward Churchill, to have any reasonable discussion over such matters.

It's a sunny day out, and so am I.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, okay, millions of natives weren't killed in our early history?

Slavery didn't exist?

The tyrannies in Central and South America, the Mideast, and Southeast Asia didn't happen?

Conversation gettin' a little too hot for you? Too many facts making your brain hurt?

heh heh heh.

Go away, little man. That's what you always do when the self-protective bullshit covering your brain gets washed away. Seems as if your ideology can't survive the truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, to get to Ayn Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged when I was about 12. Even then, I thought it was stupid. The characters were so monodimensional as to be nothing but cartoons.

IIRC in the end the Captains of Industry Fly Away to Make a Better World.

Indeed, I wish they would. It would please me immensely if they would Go Away to a Special Place and live with each other, and ONLY each other! But of course they won't, because they only derive their immense wealth by exploiting others. And so, as much as they despise the Little People, they still need to eat them for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:34 AM

CANTTAKESKY

I hate Rand.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. -- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:46 AM

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/020910Lendman.shtml

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, okay, millions of natives weren't killed in our early history?

Slavery didn't exist?

The tyrannies in Central and South America, the Mideast, and Southeast Asia didn't happen?

Conversation gettin' a little too hot for you? Too many facts making your brain hurt?

Even before our history, as a nation. Yes, it happened. Not really the issue that's on the front burner now though, is it? Hardly.

Slavery still exists, just not here. We had a war which ended that though...145 yrs ago......

Those tyrannies happened, with or with out us. Again w/ the 'blame the US for EVERYTHING ' crap.

No, the conversation was getting a bit too dumb for me. If I stick around, my brain will start to die, bit by bit, from being over exposed to copious amounts of stupid.

It's not the facts, it's the misapplication of those facts.

Wet streets don't cause rain. Try to remember that one, darlin'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, then, I'm glad I haven't read Rand! From all I've heard over the years, it sounded like a basically stupid premise, and she sounded like a real nutcase. The mere fact that going to that "special place" to get away from the little people is ridiculous, as mentioned; who's going to do the dirty work? Eventually such a place would turn into where they left, or rise up and smite them. So I never bothered. Plus, the philosophy alienates me.

Poor Crappy. I thought you had left, but I see when I came in to post, you've returned. You are so out of your depth on this forum, I can't decide whether you're compelled to come here to spout your blindly-held beliefs, or you come here deliberately to trigger people; either one makes for a sad, sad life!

"....capitalism is the single greatest thing we've got going. No system permits nearly as much freedom, bestows anywhere near the responsibility to the people, and provides so much for so many".

“Where the hell are they hungry ? Is it in places where freedom and capitalism reign?“

Quote:
In November 2009, the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (USDA) reported that 49 million Americans, including 17 million children, are food insecure; that is, they "had difficulty providing enough food for all their (family) members due to a lack of resources. The prevalence of food insecurity was....the highest observed since nationally representative food security surveys were initiated in 1995."

In September 2009, the US Census Bureau reported rising poverty, falling incomes, and growing numbers of uninsured US households. Even by the Bureau's conservative estimates, 39.8 million Americans were impoverished, the highest level since 1960, and 17.1 million lived in extreme poverty at below one-half the official threshold.

Quote:
Of the 49.1 million people living in food insecure households (up from 36.2 million in 2007), 32.4 million are adults (14.4 percent of all adults) and 16.7 million are children (22.5 percent of all children).

17.3 million people lived in households that were considered to have "very low food security," a USDA term (previously denominated "food insecure with hunger") that means one or more people in the household were hungry over the course of the year because of the inability to afford enough food. This was up from 11.9 million in 2007 and 8.5 million in 2000.

Very low food security had been getting worse even before the recession. The number of people in this category in 2008 is more than double the number in 2000.

Black (25.7 percent) and Hispanic (26.9 percent) households experienced food insecurity at far higher rates than the national average.

http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html

“You're the useful idiot for bondage and slavery”, “I espouse freedom , and that pisses you off. And then you go yammering about " justice " ?”, “The moral blindness you show towards those reasons, the actual causes of so much misery and death in recent times is bewildering”, “That's the very hypocritical hate speech you accuse others of engaging in, though I'd doubt you have the cognitive skills to noodle that out for yourself”, “You're too much a devote to the fake Indian, Ward Churchill, to have any reasonable discussion over such matters”. None of those are arguments, merely the usual mudslinging you and others engage in.

You don’t espouse freedom, you espouse freedom when and where you believe it’s warranted. There are many examples of that, the most recent being the Arizona law. It doesn’t bother you in the slightest that anyone perceived as an illegal alien (whether actually one or not) has no civil rights and can be detained for no other reason than how they look. You wouldn’t tolerate it if you “looked” Hispanic, and you’d be screaming about your civil rights.

I love my country, but I refuse to blind myself to its faults. Nobody here blames the US for "everything", that's a misstatement. But we're intelligent and educated enough to recognize truths and able to love America while not defending her and being determined not to see her faults. Comparing America to the regimes you listed is invalid. Over time, we have met or exceeded the number of dead of each of those regimes...if you want statistics, I’ll provide them. Our “death toll” has in some cases been more surreptitious than the actual “conquest” of a country and its people; in others, you just haven’t heard about them because, believe it or not, we DO have censorship and propaganda in this country. You’d have a real eye-opening experience if you had friends outside the US who told you about the things our media and government do not. We have slaughtered—even current media has covered a tiny bit of it; we did slaughter virtually the entire race of Native Americans when we CONQUERED this country, just as other nations have; we invaded and slaughtered untold numbers of Africans in order to bring slaves here, and uncounted more died AS slaves. The count goes on and on, and unless you can provide actual facts that we’ve “saved” more than we’ve killed, your argument is fallacious.

As for “hypocritical hate speech”, I can give you many instances of that on your part, as well, if you want. Pot calling kettle “black”.

Unregulated capitalism depends on those in power having consciences when it comes to those under them. In all of human history, the “haves” show themselves to be far more interested in increasing their own wealth, despite treating those under them as specifically slaves, or near slaves, and little or no interest in their welfare. Capitalism has been behind using war for “no-bid contracts” and contractors (among other things) to increase the wealth of the rich and powerful, that’s been clearly shown by Iraq.

Essentially, you voice opinions and state them as fact. I recognize that you either fear taking the blinders off and seeing our country as it IS, with all its flaws, or else you come here merely to tout the party line in order to rile others up. The only viable point whatsoever in debating you is to post things which others might enjoy discussing, given all you do is interject put-downs and irrelevant comments. Essentially, as you so kindly provided for us, in your own words: “And that's the sum total of your argument. You can't offer up any substantive, reasonable reply, other than dole out insults and dismissive, personal comments”, and “Quit making up shit. Either show some evidence or admit you can't.”

I’m more and more convinced you come here to start trouble, I find it so hard to conceive of anyone actually believing all the things you spout. You don’t truly love America, your you’d be aware of and willing to admit her flaws; what you espouse is a blind faith in something that doesn’t actually exist.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Those tyrannies happened with ... us.

Well, at least you're getting to the point where you admit than some tyrannies happen WITH us! That's a step in the right direction!

Quote:
Again w/ the 'blame the US for EVERYTHING ' crap.

Nope, don't blame the US for EVERYTHING. There are other bad peeps in the world too. But you blame the US for NOTHING.... not even the things that are plainly our fault.

You've always got some sort of excuse or another for all of the death and destruction that lies at OUR feet. Until you can get to the point where you admit that... yep, we did some bad shit and, NOPE.... it WASN'T "for their own good".... then you'll still be thinking with less than half the facts. Try to remember that, darlin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:29 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

No, the conversation was getting a bit too dumb for me. If I stick around, my brain will start to die, bit by bit, from being over exposed to copious amounts of stupid.

I note for the record that Rappy's been here for a long, long time.

When did your brain die, Rappy? was it back in January of '04, when you joined this site? Or was it earlier, much earlier?

And if we're all so dumb, and you're so above us all, why do you deign to wallow down here in the muck with such little people? Seems you'd be better off somewhere else, in some land of mythical super-geniuses like yourself. We're not worthy!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

What annoys the piss outta me, is that Rand is more or less espousing the same bullshit arguments about Born Better/Born Bad and the Divine Right of Kings which the USA was founded in great part to crush into the mire of history where they fucking belonged, remember that part about all men being created equal, and all that - what the hell you think it was in response to ?

Hell, it's a nightmarish, dystopian legacy dating back to that berk Plato, right on through Machiavelli, and carried right on into modern american "Capitalism" which is just a polite face duct taped over a Corporate Oligarchy running on Italian Fascist Economics.

Lest you forget, during the period in which Rand was writing some of that stuff, the USA was very, *VERY* Facism-friendly, the Corporate empire bosses thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and were cheering Franco for all they were worth as he showed those pesky peons where their place (under the corporate/state boot) really was - not to mention we supported his ass well into the 1960s, despite certain of MY spiritual forefathers standing against that fucker, mind you.

Hell, the general opinion of the Corporate world STILL amounts to "Man, that Hitler sure knew how to run a country, too bad about (the exposure of) that whole death camp thing, that kinda ruined everything (so we should hide it better next time)."

I found those books repulsive, not only was the writing apallingly bad, but Rand herself was, as most Authoritarians are, a tremendous hypocrite, and yet, for all that...

She never saw, in her blindness, that the faction she was rooting for, and the one she was rooting AGAINST - were in essence the same goddamned thing, cause if you take the books and reverse the factions of Corporation and State, it still comes out exactly the same, does it not ?

The few respectable points made, like criminalising everything to have an excuse to fuck with anyone you please, for example, are all but lost in the mire, never fully explored, and mowed down under the verbal barrage of endless diatribes against conduct she herself was notorious for engaging in...

Pfftth.

But I don't blame Rand, that's as ludicrous as blaming Plato, or Machiavelli, the folks who espouse these ideas ain't the problem so much as the bloody damn fool idiots who listen to them, and therefore give them power - just as Hitlers rise would not have been possible without the brownshirts (most of whom, mind you, got "rewarded" as they deserved as soon as they were no longer useful) so too would the rise of corporate empires not have been possible without the popular support they enjoyed, which led to them being able to use the government and it's entire resources, military included, to crush those natural forces in resistance to them.

Rub the gloss off a "free market" conservative, and you'll find a fascist, and the fastest way to do it is to ask them what they think of the IWW.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:56 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
When did your brain die, Rappy? was it back in January of '04, when you joined this site? Or was it earlier, much earlier?

And if we're all so dumb, and you're so above us all, why do you deign to wallow down here in the muck with such little people? Seems you'd be better off somewhere else, in some land of mythical super-geniuses like yourself. We're not worthy!

Kwickie, again, ( for like the 547th time ) you make my point for me.

I said THIS CONVERSATION , not this web site or even this forum.....

Yeah, I know. A but much to expect that you'd be able to understand the difference.

How did your brain ever learn human speech ?

You might be due for a refresher course.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:46 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
But I don't blame Rand, that's as ludicrous as blaming Plato, or Machiavelli, the folks who espouse these ideas ain't the problem so much as the bloody damn fool idiots who listen to them,

I agree. At any moment in time there are people shouting about every possible approach to living life. Rand got listened to: that's the issue.

People just want to be selfish SOBs, and the corporatist modern USA is all kinds of down with that way of life.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yanno, the funny thing is that if people really WERE selfish SOBs they'd have booted Rand into the dustbin, seeing her as an apologist for the Overlord that she really was.

But thanx to propaganda and a healthy dose of Stockholm Syndrome, peeps think they're something they're not. They think they're capitalists (*snicker*) when what they really are is peons with a fantasy. That's the odd thing about people: they don't recognize their REAL interests, so they empty their pockets and open their veins for the parasites, whom they could do MUCH better off without, thank you!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
When did your brain die, Rappy? was it back in January of '04, when you joined this site? Or was it earlier, much earlier?

And if we're all so dumb, and you're so above us all, why do you deign to wallow down here in the muck with such little people? Seems you'd be better off somewhere else, in some land of mythical super-geniuses like yourself. We're not worthy!

Kwickie, again, ( for like the 547th time ) you make my point for me.

I said THIS CONVERSATION , not this web site or even this forum.....

Yeah, I know. A but much to expect that you'd be able to understand the difference.

How did your brain ever learn human speech ?

You might be due for a refresher course.

Awww, whassamatta Rappy, you don't like it when people respond to what you DIDN'T say?

Then why do you do it so often?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:32 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yanno, the funny thing is that if people really WERE selfish SOBs they'd have booted Rand into the dustbin, seeing her as an apologist for the Overlord that she really was.

But thanx to propaganda and a healthy dose of Stockholm Syndrome, peeps think they're something they're not. They think they're capitalists (*snicker*) when what they really are is peons with a fantasy. That's the odd thing about people: they don't recognize their REAL interests, so they empty their pockets and open their veins for the parasites, whom they could do MUCH better off without, thank you!

So, you're view is that you belong to the state, where as Rand's view is that we belong to ourselves.

I'll side w/ Rand on this one. Thanks.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:34 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Awww, whassamatta Rappy, you don't like it when people respond to what you DIDN'T say?

Then why do you do it so often?

So then, you're admitting that you screwed up, you're an idiot, and you deeply apologize for being such a colossal wanker.

Cool.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Awww, whassamatta Rappy, you don't like it when people respond to what you DIDN'T say?

Then why do you do it so often?

So then, you're admitting that you screwed up, you're an idiot, and you deeply apologize for being such a colossal wanker.

Cool.

Well, I'm admitting to behaving exactly the way you do. If all that other stuff is you admitting that you screwed up, you're an idiot, and you deeply apologize for being such a colossal wanker, then cool. It's about time you did that.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:55 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Well, I'm admitting to behaving exactly the way you do. If all that other stuff is you admitting that you screwed up, you're an idiot, and you deeply apologize for being such a colossal wanker, then cool. It's about time you did that.

You're behaving the exact OPPOSITE of how I do. Just admit that you're wrong, and we'll move on.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Well, I'm admitting to behaving exactly the way you do. If all that other stuff is you admitting that you screwed up, you're an idiot, and you deeply apologize for being such a colossal wanker, then cool. It's about time you did that.

You're behaving the exact OPPOSITE of how I do. Just admit that you're wrong, and we'll move on.

You mean admit that YOU are wrong? Hell, that's not even a news flash; you're wrong so often it's hardly worth remarking on. And you're wrong again. Surprise, surprise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
you're view is that you belong to the state, where as Rand's view is that we belong to ourselves.

Boy, you are one fucked-up puppy! Where did I say that? Can you find it anywhere??

NOPE! YA CAN'T, CAN YA? (doofus)

And, as usual, you got is bass-akwards. The issue is that Rand thinks we belong to HER and her kind. So pardon me while I kick her in the shin. You too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
you're view is that you belong to the state, where as Rand's view is that we belong to ourselves.
Boy, you are one fucked-up puppy! Where did I say that? Can you find it anywhere??

NOPE! YA CAN'T, CAN YA? (doofus)

And, as usual, you got is bass-akwards. The issue is that Rand thinks we belong to HER and her kind. So pardon me while I kick her in the shin. You too.

Ruh-roh - Rappy got caught AGAIN claiming people said what they clearly didn't? Imagine that!

Rappy,

Quote:

So then, you're admitting that you screwed up, you're an idiot, and you deeply apologize for being such a colossal wanker.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:10 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
you're view is that you belong to the state, where as Rand's view is that we belong to ourselves.
Boy, you are one fucked-up puppy! Where did I say that? Can you find it anywhere??

NOPE! YA CAN'T, CAN YA? (doofus)

And, as usual, you got is bass-akwards. The issue is that Rand thinks we belong to HER and her kind. So pardon me while I kick her in the shin. You too.

Your bashing of Rand constitutes as much. EVERYONE belongs to themselves. Maybe you should read her books again. This time, w/ your eyes OPEN ?

Kick me in my shin , draw back a stump. Your choice.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:13 PM

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Rappy's going into his "Internet Tough Guy" routine again!

That is just PRECIOUS!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I hate Rand.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. -- HDT

And yet your posts in other threads and your signature all indicate that your belief system is at least in part, based on Rand philosophy - an organic system where the strong survive and the weak do not, where government intervention is virually non existent - aren't these Randian in nature?

I don't abhore the capitalist system per se - but I see it has its limits and flaws. I read a lot of posts and blogs from Americans who subsribe to the beliefs that government intervention is always wrong, that left on its own, the system naturally balances itself - and there is some truth to that - it's just that the 'balancing' can often mean catastrophic outcomes for large portions of the population who may be caught up in events that have nothing to do with what they have done personally. Banking and finance is a classic example.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 6:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I read a lot of posts and blogs from Americans who subsribe to the beliefs that government intervention is always wrong, that left on its own, the system naturally balances itself - and there is some truth to that - it's just that the 'balancing' can often mean catastrophic outcomes for large portions of the population who may be caught up in events that have nothing to do with what they have done personally. Banking and finance is a classic example.

Magons, I sadly agree. Capitalism, to me, needs restraint put on it; otherwise its very nature means it will make those with such inclination do everything they can to accumulate the most wealth, at the cost of any they control.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 9:38 AM

KIRKULES

I just recently read Atlas Shrugged for the first time and really enjoyed it. One of the things that Rand’s heroes in the book all have in common is extreme honesty. They only break the law when pushed to extreme desperation. The “bad guys” aren’t just government bureaucrats, they are corrupt businessmen and scientists that sell their souls for government subsidies. Rand would have been critical in the extreme of companies like Goldman Sacks and Citi Group if their profit were in any way a result government intervention or individual dishonesty.

It wasn’t following Rand’s philosophy that caused the financial meltdown, it was government policies that encouraged dishonest behavior and government regulators that totally failed to do their job and enforce the law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

It wasn’t following Rand’s philosophy that caused the financial meltdown, it was government policies that encouraged dishonest behavior and government regulators that totally failed to do their job and enforce the law.

How did government policies "encourage dishonest behavior"? The fact that there wasn't enough regulation and weren't enough people enforcing the regulations somehow encouraged people to break the law? They would have been really really honest, except when they found they didn't have to be?

Let's face it: Time after time after time, we've seen it happen the world over: If some greedy capitalist thinks they can get away with ignoring laws and regulations, they absolutely will. And time after time after time, the harshest penalties they're likely to face amount to nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

It wasn’t following Rand’s philosophy that caused the financial meltdown, it was government policies that encouraged dishonest behavior and government regulators that totally failed to do their job and enforce the law.

No, it was a lack of regulation and banks behaving like cowboys and getting away with it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 4:18 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

It wasn’t following Rand’s philosophy that caused the financial meltdown, it was government policies that encouraged dishonest behavior and government regulators that totally failed to do their job and enforce the law.

Let's face it: Time after time after time, we've seen it happen the world over: If some greedy capitalist thinks they can get away with ignoring laws and regulations, they absolutely will. And time after time after time, the harshest penalties they're likely to face amount to nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

I agree with the slap on the wrist part, but what’s the point in new regulations if they are not enforced just like the current ones. I would be all for targeted regulation to stop corruption if I thought the government had any intention of enforcing them. Adding a few more laws to the books to pacify the anti-business mobs won’t make any difference if like current laws they are not vigorously enforced. There’s a reason that the US has created 45 million new jobs in recent years while all of Europe has created 10 million, its because businesses in the US are free from ridicules Government regulations that do nothing but burden those they are intended to protect. If you look at which governments are in the worst shape financially because of the GFC the US is pretty far down on the list and I think few would argue that our regulations are more strict that those in Europe. Strict regulation not only didn’t save Europe, one could easily argue it made things worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 4:24 PM

That so-called freedom that you say allowed us to do so much better the last several years is also the same "freedom" that allowed the banking industry to collapse in 2008 and nearly take down the entire U.S. economy. It seems as though Europe wasn't hit nearly as hard, with a few exceptions, those being places where things were done in more of the "American style" (Greece and Iceland, f'rinstance).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 4:34 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That so-called freedom that you say allowed us to do so much better the last several years is also the same "freedom" that allowed the banking industry to collapse in 2008 and nearly take down the entire U.S. economy. It seems as though Europe wasn't hit nearly as hard, with a few exceptions, those being places where things were done in more of the "American style" (Greece and Iceland, f'rinstance).

What nations in Europe were not hit as hard as the US. You might find it a very short list. Of course slow growth and high unemployment is the norm in Europe so they probaly did'nt notice as much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 5:34 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

It wasn’t following Rand’s philosophy that caused the financial meltdown, it was government policies that encouraged dishonest behavior and government regulators that totally failed to do their job and enforce the law.

No, it was a lack of regulation and banks behaving like cowboys and getting away with it.

Cowboys are actually fairly reserved,hard working, rugged and independent. I really do tire of the false stereo type of cowboys as nothing but common , rowdy OUTLAWS, riding into town, shooting into the air, and causing general chaos. Thanks, Hollywood.

Those never were, and aren't "cowboys". Euro-ignorance of the American frontier, never ceases to amaze.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That so-called freedom that you say allowed us to do so much better the last several years is also the same "freedom" that allowed the banking industry to collapse in 2008 and nearly take down the entire U.S. economy. It seems as though Europe wasn't hit nearly as hard, with a few exceptions, those being places where things were done in more of the "American style" (Greece and Iceland, f'rinstance).

What nations in Europe were not hit as hard as the US. You might find it a very short list. Of course slow growth and high unemployment is the norm in Europe so they probaly did'nt notice as much.

Australia has pretty much ridden through the GFC with minimal impact, due in part to the regulation of our finance industry. And for the record - we don't have particularly high unemployment or slow growth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 6:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

It wasn’t following Rand’s philosophy that caused the financial meltdown, it was government policies that encouraged dishonest behavior and government regulators that totally failed to do their job and enforce the law.

No, it was a lack of regulation and banks behaving like cowboys and getting away with it.

Cowboys are actually fairly reserved,hard working, rugged and independent. I really do tire of the false stereo type of cowboys as nothing but common , rowdy OUTLAWS, riding into town, shooting into the air, and causing general chaos. Thanks, Hollywood.

Those never were, and aren't "cowboys". Euro-ignorance of the American frontier, never ceases to amaze.

B]

Euro-ignorance? Do you mean 'the rest of the world' - if it was directed at me. I'm not anywhere in the vicinity of Europe. And I hardly think, as an American, that you can take the moral high ground on ignorance of others cultures.

But if I offended any cowboys with my idiomatic style I apologise. It wasn't meant to be offensive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 6:50 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Relax, Magons, you didn't offend anyone else, I'm pretty sure. I'm guessing it's a sore spot for Kirk; lord knows I have enough of my own!

The euphymism "acting like cowboys" has long been understood the world over. It doesn't mean actual cowboys. I don't know what the concept is of our cowboys elsewhere, but yes, they were mostly hard working, not-particularly-social (as in "independent" of society), men trying to survive by driving cattle over hundreds of dusty miles, getting tons of broken bones "breaking" horses (which, if they'd only known, could have been done without any harm to horse OR them), breaking more bones, eating dust and getting bruises and "road rash" from lasooing (SP?) cattle, pounding fences, etc. All for relatively little money, but most of them were loners and swapped the more comfortable life for their independence. It was a hard life.

The term came from cowboys who got drunk at the end of the trail (and who wouldn't?) and were seen "shooting into the air, and causing general chaos". It wasn't fair, but it's been used ever since...who hasn't heard of "cowboy diplomacy", etc.? The term's meaning is clear, however it came about.

Besides, your guys Down Under are probably the closest anywhere else in the world to our cowboys of old, so you probably understand the REAL meaning of the term better than any other country. You may call them something different, but they are (were?) cowboys in the original sense.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 6:57 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Pftth, so soon people forget.

The primary check and balance wasn't, and isn't, Gov regulation, so much as it was the risk of a collective of pissed off and maltreated workers, or members of a polluted and abused community, taking *issue* with the Corporation in a serious way.

A check and balance that was essentially destroyed by the Corporates ability to call in the Gov and it's entire fucking military to protect them, which they WILL do, and yet can't even be bothered to enforce regs against em whatever ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

Find me ONE BLOODY TIME, the miltary intervened against the Corpies in that list - ONE.

Till then, don't expect me to believe Government is any kinda check and balance against Corporations - if anything, in my eyes they are both just different sides of the same tyrannical coin, and the best defense against them is grinding them up against each other in hopes of utterly destroying both.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 7:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Hehehe, Modern Cowboys (i.e. protest organisers) go something like this, you ask me.

Trust me, YOU try keepin some semblance of purpose to a pack of Anarchists for.. an hour...

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 7:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Pftth, so soon people forget.

The primary check and balance wasn't, and isn't, Gov regulation, so much as it was the risk of a collective of pissed off and maltreated workers, or members of a polluted and abused community, taking *issue* with the Corporation in a serious way.

A check and balance that was essentially destroyed by the Corporates ability to call in the Gov and it's entire fucking military to protect them, which they WILL do, and yet can't even be bothered to enforce regs against em whatever ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

Find me ONE BLOODY TIME, the miltary intervened against the Corpies in that list - ONE.

Till then, don't expect me to believe Government is any kinda check and balance against Corporations - if anything, in my eyes they are both just different sides of the same tyrannical coin, and the best defense against them is grinding them up against each other in hopes of utterly destroying both.

-F

I think you miss the comments about how countries who have *better* regulation of their banking have had less fall out with the GFC. It would be hard to have none altogether, given the global scale of the losses, but they haven't had the same degree of consequences.

I can't see why financial institutions should be given such free reign in an economy - when the rest of us have to live by certain rules and regulations which govern how we do business and conduct ourselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 7:23 PM