Ayn Rand and the Invincible Cult of Selfishness on the American Right

TuTu Monroe said:
I was poor growing up, but I made it all on my own, without any help from anyone. It's a good feeling.
Click to expand...



No you didn’t. That's just Rightwing hubris. If you got parachuted into Cambodia you would starve to death, regardless of your alleged self-sufficiency and mythical self-reliance.

Are we to assume that your professional, educational, and personal experience is one of driving only on private roads, attending private schools, drilling your own water wells, inspecting your own food for toxins, and forgoing all the educational, technological, and medical advances that were funded or subsidized by public resources? Don’t be ridiculous. Your entire life, your educational, personal, and professional well-being is predicated on a system that leverages our collective resources for the benefit of the public commons.

You have a comfortable life here because the nation has collectively spent tens of trillions of dollars on the public commons, including but not limited to a transportation infrastructure, a power and water grid, a public education system, a public legal system, publically financed science and technology, a world class public university system, and a modest public healthcare and retirement system – all of which prevent this nation from being an appalling third world nation, and enabled the rise of a strong middle class.

You Republicans want to go back to pre-New Deal America. If you had been born into pre-New Deal America, you would be barely scratching out an existence even while working twice as hard as you do now. Glenn Beck should have told that that America in 1880 was a two class nation: a nation of a few wealthy elites, and a great mass of exploited proletariats. And you’re not Thomas Edison, so the odds are about 100% that you would toil in a life of misery if you had been born into a nation, such as pre-New Deal America, that didn’t collectively invest in it’s public commons.
 
Cypress said:
No you didn’t. That's just Rightwing hubris. If you got parachuted into Cambodia you would starve to death, regardless of your alleged self-sufficiency and mythical self-reliance.

Are we to assume that your professional, educational, and personal experience is one of driving only on private roads, attending private schools, drilling your own water wells, inspecting your own food for toxins, and forgoing all the educational, technological, and medical advances that were funded or subsidized by public resources? Don’t be ridiculous. Your entire life, your educational, personal, and professional well-being is predicated on a system that leverages our collective resources for the benefit of the public commons.

You have a comfortable life here because the nation has collectively spent tens of trillions of dollars on the public commons, including but not limited to a transportation infrastructure, a power and water grid, a public education system, a public legal system, publically financed science and technology, a world class public university system, and a modest public healthcare and retirement system – all of which prevent this nation from being an appalling third world nation, and enabled the rise of a strong middle class.

You Republicans want to go back to pre-New Deal America. If you had been born into pre-New Deal America, you would be barely scratching out an existence even while working twice as hard as you do now. Glenn Beck should have told that that America in 1880 was a two class nation: a nation of a few wealthy elites, and a great mass of exploited proletariats. And you’re not Thomas Edison, so the odds are about 100% that you would toil in a life of misery if you had been born into a nation, such as pre-New Deal America, that didn’t collectively invest in it’s public commons.
Click to expand...

This post of yours is indicitive of your incorrigible, disingenuous far-left bullshit. As usual, you don't know WTF you are talking about.
 
Cypress said:
No you didn’t. That's just Rightwing hubris. If you got parachuted into Cambodia you would starve to death, regardless of your alleged self-sufficiency and mythical self-reliance.

Are we to assume that your professional, educational, and personal experience is one of driving only on private roads, attending private schools, drilling your own water wells, inspecting your own food for toxins, and forgoing all the educational, technological, and medical advances that were funded or subsidized by public resources? Don’t be ridiculous. Your entire life, your educational, personal, and professional well-being is predicated on a system that leverages our collective resources for the benefit of the public commons.

You have a comfortable life here because the nation has collectively spent tens of trillions of dollars on the public commons, including but not limited to a transportation infrastructure, a power and water grid, a public education system, a public legal system, publically financed science and technology, a world class public university system, and a modest public healthcare and retirement system – all of which prevent this nation from being an appalling third world nation, and enabled the rise of a strong middle class.

You Republicans want to go back to pre-New Deal America. If you had been born into pre-New Deal America, you would be barely scratching out an existence even while working twice as hard as you do now. Glenn Beck should have told that that America in 1880 was a two class nation: a nation of a few wealthy elites, and a great mass of exploited proletariats. And you’re not Thomas Edison, so the odds are about 100% that you would toil in a life of misery if you had been born into a nation, such as pre-New Deal America, that didn’t collectively invest in it’s public commons.
Click to expand...
TuTu Monroe said:
This post of yours is indicitive of your incorrigible, disingenuous far-left bullshit. As usual, you don't know WTF you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Cypress why even try? I've pretty much given up. History means nothing.
 
apple0154 said:
We're talking about one dollar out of eight hundred to be used to help others. Besides the idiocy of Joe saying that would influence his decision the Republican Party ran with it as if that was their belief, one of the tenets of their platform. What message does that send? Certainly not Compassionate Conservatism.

As far as robbing one of incentive if a person contracts an illness and knows their government is against helping to the point where one dollar out of eight hundred is considered excessive what type of society are we going to have?

Of course people will hold on to every dollar when they live in a society knowing their government will let them rot before helping. Such policies promote selfishness, people constantly watching out no one gets any help from the government.

That's why we constantly hear so much about welfare. The actual cost is not that much but people are so jealous, so envious someone may be getting something and they're not.

Lack of government assistance/programs such as medical care and monetary assistance when needed causes people to become jealous, greedy, selfish, etc. That's not the way a society should function. How can people care about others when they know their own government does not care about them?

That's why the word "change" is so appropriate. There needs to be a fundamental, sweeping change. We have the resources and technology to ensure no one is left destitute. That doesn't mean just giving money away. There are a number of ways the government can implement programs to ensure everyone has a basic standard of living and medical coverage is a great place to start.
Click to expand...

I don't care if it's 50 cents. Being forced to work for free, goes against everything that gives people the incentive to work.

By the way, they've discovered that he didn't say "change". Instead he said "chains".
 
tom prendergast said:
We know, we know, you are a self made woman blah blah blah. if I were you then I'd sue the builder for using sub standard materials.
Click to expand...

They you definetly have a reason to seek payment for damages.
You were built with a dick, instead of a vagina and you've been trying for years to substitute for the defect.
 
apple0154 said:
Ted Kennedy had abysmal personal hygiene and grooming habits and seduced young women (plural) in his orbit?

The difficulty I have with Conservatives is they go on about the value of families and overall compassion but advocate the opposite when dealing with public policy. Why are they against the "policies" prevalent in families to be extended to the world at large?

If combining efforts and helping each member is at the base of what makes families great why do Conservatives fight against a similar approach when it comes to society, in general?
Click to expand...

You never did explain why you, a liberal, would judge Ayn Rand for the way she expressed her sexuality. She could have screwed any man or woman that she came accross, and it would make no sense for you to judge her.

Meanwhile, Teddy had an affair of his own, and even got the girl killed. He is also remembered for popularizing the term, "waitress sandwich" along with Chris Dodd. Yet you will defend Kennedy and attack Rand for strictly partisan reasons.

I don't really have a bone in this fight, because I am neither a Randian or a liberal.
 
cawacko said:
The irony to me dude is I live in the heart of SF, the ATM of the Democratic political world and I know all about those who live around me (just because I like business and real estate so not in a stalkerish way I just am interested). All kinds of CEO's of real estate and financial firms. These guys are Democrats. There is plenty of irony in the Republican party so I don't need a comparison to already know that. But this one hits at the heart of the Dems.
Click to expand...

I, for one, have never said that Wall St. and all investment bankers/ bankers are solely Republicans, or that those of the aforementioned responsible for the financial meltdown we're experiencing were solely Republicans. I notice, however, that's it's the majority of the GOP along with the minority of Bluedog Dems that are resisting any serious reform proposals from the Obama White House. Go figure.
 
tom prendergast said:
Has anybody on here actually ever read Atlas Shrugged? I started to read it a while back but gave up, it is a very turgid read seeming to be more about shoving Objectivism down your throat than anything else. I can see why the rightwing nuts love it though, it is a bit like a in-house magazine for all their prejudices and fears.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I read it, and The Fountainhead, when I was younger and more impressionable but with perspective I consider it pretty much silly and pretentious.
 
T&A said:
You never did explain why you, a liberal, would judge Ayn Rand for the way she expressed her sexuality. She could have screwed any man or woman that she came accross, and it would make no sense for you to judge her.

Meanwhile, Teddy had an affair of his own, and even got the girl killed. He is also remembered for popularizing the term, "waitress sandwich" along with Chris Dodd. Yet you will defend Kennedy and attack Rand for strictly partisan reasons.

I don't really have a bone in this fight, because I am neither a Randian or a liberal.
Click to expand...

Coupled with abysmal personal hygiene and grooming habits. That is what's disgusting.

When it comes to sex cleanliness is next to Godliness.
 
We saw 'Capitalism, A Love Story' yesterday, interesting movie, quite funny in parts, I didn't see Ayn, but all the other village idiots, Reagan, Bush, et al were present.
 
midcan5 said:
We saw 'Capitalism, A Love Story' yesterday, interesting movie, quite funny in parts, I didn't see Ayn, but all the other village idiots, Reagan, Bush, et al were present.
Click to expand...

I hope someone makes a Horatio Alger epic in response to this. That would be hilarious
 
Threedee said:
I hope someone makes a Horatio Alger epic in response to this. That would be hilarious
Click to expand...

Alger would spin in his grave if he knew the conditions standing in the way of the young men of today. Corporatism was unknown to him as were leveraged buyouts, mergers, job exportation, Walmart, McDonald's, and Globalism. I think it might be more realistic for a Horatio Alger epic of today to side with Moore.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top