The representative says "Republicans caving too much." There's help - I understand plastic surgeons can tighten vaginas.
The GOP caves in because they always secretly agree with his policies.
We have no conservative representation!
Gutless Wonders.. Bohener and the boy's, oops ! I mean the Eunuchs will cave. They have no choice they don't want the people to hate them.. They prize popularity over fiscal responsibility ! That s why we need to cleanse the place.. Get rid of the ruling class of the GOP.!
Hehehehehehehehe About those Medicare cuts that Obama denied, well the election is over and they have their scissors out to fund ObamaCare! http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/20/With-Election-Over-Obama-Announces-Medicare-Cuts-To-Fund-ObamaCare
The reason I don't think conservatives have a chance of taking over the GOP, and am all for going 3rd party now is because there were only 12 Republicans that didn’t vote for Boehner for Speaker.
Good on Rand Paul's part http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130220/NEWS010603/302200087?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1
The Republican "leadership" (cough) is flaccid, ineffectual, and weak.
They are like water and try to take the path of least resistance - and like water, they are easily redirected and they spill over from time to time.
I have no faith in this current GOP leadership.
Democrats never compromise their Marxism; they just wait for their slander/libel and the MSM/Press backup to goad the Republicans into caving and call that compromise/bipartisanship.
“If everything you do is what the president wants, then there is no compromise.”
It would have been better had he said, "If everything you do is what the president wants, then you have a dictatorship."
I don't believe that. Boehner is like many that is caving under pressure. From where he is sitting taxes have to go up because of deficit and debt but he can't see that from where WE are sitting the government has spent too much and we won't be penalized any more for it...especially since we were against the spending in the first place. Republicans have compromised themselves into a corner and there is no getting out of it. Taxes are going to increase dramatically and Republicans will see decades of wilderness because of it.
That is not what I said. I personally think there is tons to cut!!
I am stating that from the politician's POV and Boehner's that cutting is not enough. You will continue to hear the drum beat of 'tax hikes with cuts'. We say "cut, cut' cut" but I guarantee you the mechanics of that are not so simple and in some cases so tangled up in other things (things that belong to states IMO) that it would take way too much time to disentangle when in the mean time the debt clock is ticking upward. It is a daunting task and I just don't think any of the Republican leadership in the House is up to it, not just Boehner...ALL OF THEM. They are fighting a three front war. Never easy and rarely won.
Read that again. It is a response to your thinking and labeling of "Kommiecrat' which is less than productive or even helpful.
P.S. As you make your less than helpful proclamations you also have no idea who is calling those congressional offices, what they are saying, how much they donate, etc. You are not the only one applying pressure and your pressure is not great enough. You have other people with other interests to compete with. Don't forget the lobbyists as well. And before you attack they are guaranteed a right to lobby as are you and they also vote their own interests.
According to GOP Leadership, there isn't:
I believe he's either a plant or he wants to be someone, even though he's not fit for the position. People who care about the fate of their country would know their own limits, and resign if they're not effective. John Boehner either cares more about the title or he's evil. I'm not sure at this point, but either way, history will not remember him fondly.
The RINOcrats are killing the Republican Party. How will we ever make gains when these stupid incompetent and ideologically absent Republicans. Boehner Cantor Ryan McCarthy, are still operating and continouslly give us power hungury and greedy people like Barack Obama? We may loose the House in 2014.
I think Boenher will cave and take the deal that the pres offers - shrink entitlements, spending cuts and closed tax loopholes. Otherwise the GOP continues to be irrelevant and could lose the house in 2014.
When it comes to defending Capitalism, Republicans are inconsistent and weak. The most they can do is give a half-hearted weak-sauce defense of Capitalism, by arguing that they think it's "inherently immoral" (because of its focus on self-interest, greed, making money, and empowering the profit motive), but that they concede that it is a "necessary evil", because it's the best system we know of for creating prosperity and happiness for all people, no matter how rich or poor they are.
Theirs is simply NOT a convincing/persuasive argument in the defense of Capitalism.
You can't just "half defend" something, and then claim that you're its champion. You have to be consistent in your defense, otherwise your opponents, who are consistent in their offense, will defeat you, and lead us all to tyranny.
Objectivists don't "half defend" Capitalism. We fully defend it on all fronts, and then go on the moral offensive, taking the fight to the moral ground which Republicans long ago surrendered to the Left. We take that ground from statists, and then we fortify it.
I highly recommend this lecture on the morality of Capitalism - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7c_p68R3Vw&t=02m00s
Listen to any Republican defending Capitalism, and then compare him with the speaker (Yaron Brook) in that video. Then you'll understand why I say they cave "because they're not Objectivists".
Harriet, sorry I have to reply here, because the comment you just made to me didn't have a reply. You can e mail CFP4US@aol.com that's my e mail too, which is also the Party e mail, but all of it comes to me personally. Even if you're not interested in the CFP, you can still feel free to e mail me there. :-)
At the core of your philosophy is atheism. Anything that espouse atheism, espouses that everything came from nothing. I am very adept at discussing how nonsensical that concept is. It destroys your philosophy.
If your directions lead you to an abandoned field strewn with garbage, I am uninterested in those directions, because I already recognize the address at the end of your directions, and happen to know there is no IMAX Theater there...no edifice of any kind. I also know the ground has been salted so nothing can even grow there, only die there.
You have arrived at a wasteland, not a panacea. Keep your directions and your destination. They're both junk. The other thing I do not need from you is ammunition of any kind for any reason. I care neither for dud fireworks or dud ammunition. All they do is fizzle and give the purchaser buyer's remorse.
You ought Fire your ammunition...with a pink slip.
I'm responding here because I couldn't on the other one.
Thanks. I don't like seeing regular Scoop folks argue so much because it always gets heated after a while. You know Rshill's way by now. He's got bite, but he's a good one. He's passionate about a lot of things as well, as we all are. I don't know enough about what his opinions are or not on this subject, but I do know he's definitely not an ignorant person. He's one of the most intelligent people I know here- and his unique way of saying things shows how creatively intelligent as well he is.
I don't think anyone minds that you or me or anyone voices our opinions or even argue some about them as we all do that here every day, but most regulars already know your passion as well, so maybe just let it rest some. Which you said you'd do and I do appreciate that.
:-) Thank you Kordane.
I guess I'm bothering because I have some respect for the fact that he's on the Right, and he at least deserves a chance at redemption through a slap to the face.
My issue with him isn't that he doesn't agree with Objectivism - It's with how he attacks Objectivism without knowing a single bloody thing about it, and even when confronted about his ignorance, openly admits as much, yet still continues his attacks. I don't mind attack dogs; I just don't like ignorant attack dogs. The guy has absolutely no interest in knowing anything about Objectivism, all he knows is "Objectivism bad! Attack Objectivism! Attack!"
It's a kind of mindless devotion to one's views that I tend to see on the Left. That's the only reason I'd ever use the "bigot" word on anyone.
I don't expect people to accept Objectivism. It's extremely hard for anyone to accept it. I merely come on here to offer intellectual ammunition to people who I think desperately need it in their fight against the statist menace. I offer links to videos and articles, and even arguments of my own, in the hope that people will use it against the Left. I don't expect to come on here and face openly-ignorant attack dogs. I'll happily take on informed criticisms, but when someone attacks without even knowing a single thing about what they're attacking, then that's a different matter entirely.
In respect to yourself, whose posts I often read, I shall stop talking to him.
OK, you can have the last word, (after these) + several affirmative action points. Don't want you bleed out in public.
Atheism is a lie. The pitiful pillars of it are also lies. Whichever road you traversed to get to those lies, led you there, and whichever vehicle you used to travel it, no doubt needs a new suspension. My vehicle has a forever warranty and travels the sure road. Yours is a bucket of bolts.
As long as you continue to use faulty formulas, you'll continue coming up with the wrong answers.
Quote: "You go ahead and understand the lies. I'll stick with the truth. Not interested in being an expert on lies. I prefer truth."
You can't know one without knowing the other. Truth and falsehood are not mutually exclusive.
For instance, if I knew the truth about what elements the moon is made from, I would therefore logically know everything that it is not made out of, eg. Not made of cheese.
Quite frankly, I don't think you do prefer truth. I think you prefer to stick with your religious beliefs, and damn anything else as false. You have no genuine interest in the truth. If you did, then you'd be willing to at least investigate alternative views; you'd have an open mind.
Quote: "I do notice that you have one arrow left in your quiver. The word "bigot"."
I reserve that word for people who truly meet its requirements. It's rare that I find someone on the Right who is so fanatical in their beliefs that they are unwilling to even investigate alternate viewpoints; instead preferring to attack out of sheer ignorance (and even proud of the fact). I tend to find such people on the Left, but there are the odd exceptions to the rule on the Right.
Quote: "Not interested in being an expert on lies. I prefer truth."
You mean you're not interested in understanding what you're attacking. Don't you see how wrong that is? Don't you see that you're no better than Liberals who do exactly the same to the Right? Don't you see that you can never call something "lies" until you understand what it is that you're calling a lie? Don't you see that there is no separation between knowing the what's true and knowing what a lie; that to know one is to know the other?
You're nothing but an attack dog. Anyone reading this discussion thread can see that.
You belittle yourself and your message. I pity you. You're not how people on the Right should act.
If he's like talking to a brick wall, why are you still bothering about it? Kordane, once in a while folks do find things to agree with you about but obviously not all people believe in Objectivism as passionately as you do. I'll be the first to admit, I haven't got a clue half the time what you're even talking about, so I usually just breeze through most comments on it anymore.
Eventhough no one's flagged any of your comments here, I'm getting pretty annoyed at the "bigot" name and you trying to tell folks what they think. People have listened and many times have responded to you yet because they don't believe, you feel the need to keep pushing it. Go ahead and keep talking to the brick wall but don't get so bent out of shape when folks don't respond the way you'd like them to.
You go ahead and understand the lies. I'll stick with the truth. Not interested in being an expert on lies. I prefer truth.
I do notice that you have one arrow left in your quiver. The word "bigot". It seems you've somehow mass-produced that last arrow and can therefore use it repeatedly. It falls way short of the target though, with each and every pull of the longbow.
You have neither wisdom nor eloquence. You're a lightweight lie-lover. But...at least you love something...and what's not to love about a lie? Maybe that lie will set you free, albeit at great cost to yourself and those who might depend on you. I would never depend on you.
Find another Foxhole. This one is taken.
You've proven that you don't know anything about Objectivism, that your only intention is to destroy, and yet you proclaim that Objectivism is "half-truths, tortured theories, and outright lies".
The bottom line is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and furthermore, I don't think you care to.
His admonition is to vote only for democrats. One might assume, some of his listeners or readers are also struggling Objectivists like yourself. Struggling with half-truths, tortured theories, and outright lies. No wonder Rand chose him as her heir.
Perhaps he'll in turn, choose you.
Quote: "Hmmm. I thought that's what your life goal was"
Unlike yourself, I try to understand my opponents' ideas, so as better to articulate my own ideas, and hopefully persuade some people. I don't set out, as you did, with the singular intention to attack attack attack. I mean, look at your replies, all of them are geared towards attacking. You don't have any intention to understand a single bloody thing about Objectivism. Talking to a brick wall would be better than talking to you. The bottom line is that you're just a bigot, because bigots are people who have their views and are intolerant and unwilling to listen to any other views.
You didn't listen to a single bloody thing he said, did you? You just typed "Leonard Peikoff" into wikipedia, and then quoted the first thing you could use to attack with.
You just quote that stuff as if he was "self-evidently" wrong, without even considering that maybe he's right about his criticism of the religious right. You obviously don't accept that criticism, because you're a religious fanatic who would happily live under a Christian theocracy if you could.
Also, Peikoff doesn't tell Objectivists how to vote. That's a decision that's left up to each Objectivist. Personally, I vote Libertarian. If there was a Rand Paul / Allen West ticket, then I'd vote Republican next time around. Each to his own.
"...and seek only to denigrate what you perceive to be a threat."
Hmmm. I thought that's what your life goal was. I stand uncorrected, on your face.
I've apparently got on your last nerve. Perhaps I'll pinch your facial nerve too. Try not to grimace.
"In advance of the 2006 elections, Peikoff recommended voting only for Democrats, to forestall what he sees is a rise in influence of the religious right, adding:"
"Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer [Democrats], and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer [Republicans], it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad.""
There you go. Follow his advice. Vote straight democrat ticket.
You're twisting the words because you don't understand a single bloody thing about Objectivism and what it stands for, and seek only to denigrate what you perceive to be a threat.
The line you quoted is not advocating that children have a monetary price put on their heads! It's an exchange of spiritual values, such as the parents gaining a sense of joy/happiness from having children and seeing them grow up, in exchange for the children being provided/cared for.
The happiness they gain is of greater value to them than all the time/effort/money they spend on their children, and is hence not a sacrifice for them to have children.
That Objectivism is not anti-family and is not anti-children, contrary to your endorsement of the author of the article who made that false claim.
Objectivism does not approve of that
"Some of us have wives and children, but there is a mutual trade involved in that, and a mutual payment"
Yep, gives me emotional chills such as I've never known, and fills my poor empty heart with butterflies, hummingbirds, and little heart-shaped valentines. I'm all misty over here.
Chattel: How much for 3-4 head of those?
Spare me your tortured adopted philosophy which has to tie itself in knots like 300 feet of Christmas lights, then untangle them one at a time to get to the point where they're all laid out in a row, you plug them in, and no light comes from any point on the string.
The Christmas story though, ah, that's where light lives.
Quote: "That’s why there are no families and no children to speak of in Galt’s Gulch. Any Randian community must die out in a generation.""
Quoted from Atlas Shrugged, page #579: "I shall charge you for your room and board — it is against our rules to provide the unearned sustenance of another human being. Some of us have wives and children, but there is a mutual trade involved in that, and a mutual payment"
Quoted from Atlas Shrugged, page #597: "The recaptured sense of her own childhood kept coming back to her whenever she met the two sons of the young woman who owned the bakery shop. She often saw them wandering down the trails of the valley — two fearless beings, aged seven and four. They seemed to face life as she had faced it. They did not have the look she had seen in the children of the outer world — a look of fear, half-secretive, half sneering, the look of a child's defense against an adult, the look of a being in the process of discovering that he is hearing lies and of learning to feel hatred."
Quoted from Atlas Shrugged, page #598: ""They represent my particular career, Miss Taggart," said the young mother in answer to her comment, wrapping a loaf of fresh bread and smiling at her across the counter. "They're the profession I've chosen to practice, which, in spite of all the guff about motherhood, one can't practice successfully in the outer world. I believe you've met my husband, he's the teacher of economics who works as linesman for Dick McNamara. You know, of course, that there can be no collective commitments in this valley and that families or relatives are not allowed to come here, unless each person takes the striker's oath by his own independent conviction. I came here, not merely for the sake of my husband's profession, but for the sake of my own. I came here in order to bring up my sons as human beings. I would not surrender them to the educational systems devised to stunt a child's brain, to convince him that reason is impotent, that existence is an irrational chaos with which he's unable to deal, and thus reduce him to a state of chronic terror. You marvel at the difference between my children and those outside, Miss Taggart?"
It goes to show how this particular writer of this particular article hasn't even read Atlas Shrugged, and neither have you, it seems.
I would argue that this individual should seek out expert Objectivists (eg. Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook, Don Watkins) who can answer his technical questions. If you just rely on what he calls a "Moderate Randian", then he's not going to get the same quality of answer that he needs to get to fully answer his questions. From what I read, the guy is going into epistemology, and that's pretty complex stuff. Anyone who has read the book "Introduction to Objectivist epistemology" will know what I'm talking about.
There are wrong conclusions, such as the one Rshill7 mentions, where it's concluded that Objectivists wouldn't have children because it's considered "altruistic" and therefore immoral to have children.
Here is a podcast from Ayn Rand's heir Leonard Peikoff, who addresses that very question: http://www.peikoff.com/2011/06/27/does-objectivism-hold-that-having-children-is-an-immoral-self-sacrifice/
I like this part:
"That’s why all the blood relatives of Rand’s heroes are portrayed as either irrelevant non-humans whom the hero must escape in his teens and never see again (Roark’s birth family, Galt’s birth family), or as monstrous villains and the embodiment of evil (Dagny’s brother, Rearden’s mother and brother). That’s why there are no families and no children to speak of in Galt’s Gulch. Any Randian community must die out in a generation."
I do not subscribe to the Objectivist worldview. And since you indicate an appreciation for "intellectual ammunition," I'm inviting you to follow this link to learn why: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018155.html
This is my way of replying to you without hijacking the thread.
There are other reasons for why Republicans "cave too much", such as their basing unalienable individual rights on faith in the supernatural, rather than on reality and reason; such as their willingness to "compromise" with statists, rather than resisting them on (moral) principle; such as their willingness to do what is 'expedient', rather than do what is 'right'; such as their inconsistent defense of individualism, and their frequent acceptance/use of collectivism, etc.
If you want to watch more content, then I suggest going to the main Objectivist video site - http://www.arc-tv.com
Even if there's certain stuff you don't like about Objectivism, there's a hell of a lot of intellectual ammunition on there; videos/podcasts that will bolster your arguments and help you tear statist arguments to shreds. I'm more than happy to link stuff if it helps people fight more effectively for the cause of liberty.
The video is over 90 minutes, so I saved it to watch later. Thanks for the reply. I will look at the video when I have some spare time.