Who is Ayn Rand? Why is she important to you?

[LJ_Reloaded]

LJ

I dont believe real Randoids accept Federal money.

People call themselves all kinds of things but the Real McCoy walk the talk.

They drive on it. They post messages on it. (Although they'll point out that today's internet is privately-run, it wouldn't even exist without Federal funding, and it certainly would not exist in its current state without Al Gore's help.)

Randroids mail letters through a Federally funded institution. They could deliver it themselves.

There's more to Federal money than welfare checks...

 

[amicus]

Rand was right about how our economy works in practice, and she was right about subsistence bartering being the outcome after producers become weary from the abuse and oppression of the oligarchy.

But there's more to it.

Since 1960 our government has quietly moved millions of smart Americans from commerce, manufacturing, agriculture, construction, technology, etc to LAW, EDUCATION, HUMAN SERVICES, BANKING, and allied vocations. Guidance counselors make nuthin anyone wants. Lawyers create nuthin but conflicts. And teachers are expensive babysitters for America's pampered, brittle, neurotic children.

The collapse of the nation is unfolding before our eyes![/QUOTE]

~~~

In concert with your presentation of the Camille Pagia article in another thread, your second paragraph above poses some questions...

As western societies naturally progress from industrial to post industrial to service economies; it follows that white collar labor, as you specified above, would become central occupations.

About half of all Americans receive an income from investments, Stock Market or otherwise, and those investments fund industrial projects all over the world. Market Capitalists see this as a natural progression of events as manual, human labor is replaced by machinery and now robotics.

There is always the temptation for government to claim a share of profits made by investment, hell, government, considering the size it is and its expansion has even stated they want a portion of the Gulf Oil payments by BP as taxes for the General Fund. How disdainful and even obscene is that thought to all the people suffering from loss of income in the Gult?

My question is of a theoretical nature and requires the stipulation that half the population is under a 105 IQ and is simply not mentally equipped to participate in future market affairs.

What will naturally evolve in a free market system to employ those basically capable of manual labor only?

Our local collectivists advocate taxing the upper half of the IQ range to support the lower half, but, as I understand the basic tenets of this Republic, unequal taxation is tyranny and forbidden under law.

Even the middle class of today looks askance at government union employees, whom they support financially, and who live better than they do with higher wages, better medical and pension benefits, all provided by their taxes.

The myopic collectivists voice the intent to return to a manufacturing basis, devolving to an industrial society and I don't see that happening anywhere with it being imposed on a population...so much for individual freedom to choice.

Just thoughts...

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Ayn Rand is relevant to me because I enjoy political discourse, and she makes it bloody annoying at times.

She had some good ideas, but as all ideologists, she presents an ideal that is not completely compatible with the complexity of the real world.

And there's a certain clique of people who read her writings like Holy Scripture, deify her person, blow her importance absudly out of proportion and see any objection to her ideas, any nuance other than the purest of Randism, any attempt to problematize, as nothing but evil, statist freedom hating. Moreso than with any other political thinker I've ever seen. Even a hardcore Maxist can be reasoned with.

I don't talk religion with Talibans.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Quite aside your distaste of Rand and those who advocate her basic principles, I found a question in your exposition.

It has been a half century since my beginning college days, thus some memory loss may arise; however, was it Goethe, who explained and defined the 'Universal Man' concept?

At a pre BC time when Philosophy was a handmaiden to Religion, in man's attempt to comprehend reality, it was perhaps possible for a single mind to encompass the whole of human knowledge.

That has not been the case for over a century as a single mind can not even be aware of the billions of manuscripts and published thoughts.

The essence of Ayn Rand's works, both fiction and non fiction, is to mirror the function of the human brain, to conceptualize and form abstract conceptions that combine areas of knowledge and integrate the common denominators of knowledge to a single, all inclusive concept.

The more I do battle with collectivists, like yourself, the more I begin to consider that you are viscerally unable to embrace Rand's fundamental observation that all values proceed from the individual.

Your innate 'belief', if there is such a thing and I question even that, that values arise from the group, the collective, is a barrier between you and I, and, I think, a barrier preventing discussion, as you insist, between those who posit a belief that the collective is supreme over the individual.

It is true, if I may; I cannot discuss anything with one who states that my life is of less importance than the herd.

As you said, you would not attempt to discuss religion with the Taliban; I would add, I do not attempt to discuss any subject with a believer, a Religious person in particular, to whom, "God", is the ultimate answer to every question.

I have accused you, and many others, of being 'true believers', in the faith of Marxism or even the Socratic concept of the greater good, and in being so, you place yourself beyond the rational and the reasonable and into the realm of faith.

You express, as do so many others, an unconditional faith that the group supercedes the importance of the individual in every case and you are not open to discussion of the opposing viewpoint.

I read all the critics of Rand on this thread, following your Post, and was going to respond to each...but why...? They reflect well worn artistic, academic critiques that are self serving to the Progressive left academic and political scene, and they reflect the same philosophical and artistic premise that sullies your commentary; that the individual is inconsequential in the overall scheme of things.

Again, when one posits the sacrifice of my individual wants, needs, desires and life to the collective, I pose the question, by what right?

Assuming you are human enough to recognize that the use of force to accomplish your ends, is barbaric, do you still wonder why I offer such opposition to your entire political and philosophical world view?

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

(appendix to 'Atlas Shrugged')

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Wow.

That was a long winded way of saying "I don't know the first thing about Liar, nor do I care to actually pay attention to what he says. I'll just make up some shit about him that has no basis in reality, so I have something to snark at and feel superior about."

The fictional antithesis to yourself that you are dreaming up and putting my monkier on sounds like a real bastard. No wonder you hate him so.

Please cite where I have preached collectivist gospel here or elsewhere. Or admit you're a disignenous hack.

Or hey, could it be that you have just proven the point of my post? That you equal any problematization of any aspect of your preferred and perfectly squared ideology, however slight, as it's complete opposite, and therefore the ultimate evil to be fought tooth and nail?

It sure looks that way.

 

[AngeloMichael]

Wow.

That was a long winded way of saying "I don't know the first thing about Liar, nor do I care to actually pay attention to what he says. I'll just make up some shit about him that has no basis in reality, so I have something to snark at and feel superior about."

The fictional antithesis to yourself that you are dreaming up and putting my monkier on sounds like a real bastard. No wonder you hate him so.

It's called a strawman argument. And while Randroids neither invented it or are the only ones who use them, they have refined it to an artform.

 

[amicus]

Awww, Liar, you poor, misunderstood little baby...my gosh!

This will not be the first time, indeed, rather one of dozens over the years, that I have pointed out that you have offered no basic premise upon which you stand.

Now, moi, you know exactly where I stand and why on every issue ever discussed.

Ever consider that your obfuscation of purpose and intent might lead to one suggesting that you really don't know what the hell you stand for?


ami

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

My crystal ball reveals a contraction of the American Dream. Soon enough the proletariat will be cast adrift and compelled to fend for themselves however they can. We'll become a nation of gated communities and ghettos. The residents of either will likely be shot if they leave the premises.

So looting and holdups and hijacking etc is the future of the dummies.

 

[amicus]

]It's called a strawman argument. And while Randroids neither invented it or are the only ones who use them, they have refined it to an artform.[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~

No, AngeloMichael, it is not a 'straw man', it is more akin, from Liar's perspective, to be identified as the modern meaning of, plausibile deniability'; let me explain.

Those who advocate central control over an individuals life, never come right out and say that. They instead hedge around the issue with cloudy, fuzzy rhetoric, apologizing that all sensitive people 'know' that the greater good is preferable, even if a 'few eggs' must be cracked to create the omelet of Statism.

Now...I believe Liar and the 'usual suspects' when they righteously proclaim that it is best for all, if the smartest among us rule.

This gawdawful concept of the commpn man actually making decisions about his own life, and through the ballot box, the lives of others? Gawd forbid!

And even further, the unspoken and unwritten certainty, that left to his own devices, the common man would let his less fortunate neighbor starve to death!

Thus, the Ivory Towered elite must rule and impose their greater wisdom upon the masses.

Ah, King Liar, if only you could...

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Awww, Liar, you poor, misunderstood little baby...my gosh!

This will not be the first time, indeed, rather one of dozens over the years, that I have pointed out that you have offered no basic premise upon which you stand.

And so you make one up for me.

Besides, you're wrong. I have time and again declared where I stand on issues. That you choose selective perception to fit your narrantive is not my problem.

Now, moi, you know exactly where I stand and why on every issue ever discussed.

Ever consider that your obfuscation of purpose and intent might lead to one suggesting that you really don't know what the hell you stand for?

That's not what you do. You make things up that I stand for.

Whatever shit you throw, however you try to spin it, you can't escape the fact that that is textbook strawman.

Hack.

 

[amicus]

It still doesn't fly, Liar...anyone who reads our exchanges knows I have given you far greater consideration than I do most who spout a Statist line.

I thought perhaps, whichever Low Country you might inhabit, that your history, as a nation, of surrender, or capitulation, or acequiesence to the fate of the Jews...I suggested that the sins of the father were not necessarily visited upon the sons and daughters.

Thus, in my compassionate offering of understanding, I thought perhaps you would sense the possiblity of forgiveness for your continual Statist viewpoints.

It is not a new thought to me, and I have expressed it before; perhaps Europeans in general simply cannot understand the nature of the United States and our concept of individual liberty.

Being occupied for four years, and being quasi Socialist even before that in the 30's, makes sense to me as to why Euro's in general are frightened of freedom.

Most Americans are not instructed sufficiently in Western European history to consider that the children and grandchildren of conquered Nations are simply not ready to express their own, very human, and innate desire for freedom.

Amicus



Amicus

 

[Liar]

"Thus, in my compassionate offering of understanding"

Full of thyself, aren't you?

I see there's no hope for a good faith discussion with you about anything. You don't even try.

You have decided that not genuflecting at the same ideological altar as you... and to question what you say when it seems illogic... and to focus on how people have to function in the reality in which they exist... is the same as "spouting a Statist line". With that as your premise for the discourse, it is poisoned from the get go.

Add to that baseless meanderings top-toeing along the edge of ad hominem like your last post, and there's nothing left that I could say to you that you wouldn't keep on demonizing or belittling to suit your narrative.

So I give up.

Have a nice time talking to yourself.

 

[amicus]

AMICUS

My crystal ball reveals a contraction of the American Dream. Soon enough the proletariat will be cast adrift and compelled to fend for themselves however they can. We'll become a nation of gated communities and ghettos. The residents of either will likely be shot if they leave the premises.

So looting and holdups and hijacking etc is the future of the dummies.[/QUOTE]

~~~

That prognostication, with some minor variations on a theme, is a well worn one...I imagine you know that.

Ther reason I don't buy into it can be expressed in one word: Electricity.

Without power, the gated communities fall and the ghetto's starve.



ami

 

[Miss_Pixie]

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
A time of great enlightenment, and a time of great folly.

or something like that...lol I may have made the second line up

 

[amicus]

]"Thus, in my compassionate offering of understanding"

Full of thyself, aren't you?

I see there's no hope for a good faith discussion with you about anything. You don't even try.

You have decided that not genuflecting at the same ideological altar as you... and to question what you say when it seems illogic... and to focus on how people have to function in the reality in which they exist... is the same as "spouting a Statist line". With that as your premise for the discourse, it is poisoned from the get go.

Add to that baseless meanderings top-toeing along the edge of ad hominem like your last post, and there's nothing left that I could say to you that you wouldn't keep on demonizing or belittling to suit your narrative.

So I give up.

Have a nice time talking to yourself.[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~

Picture me, Liar, in an empty studio, with just a microphone and telephone lines and you will realize that I have always been talking to only myself.

If yoiu consider the rights of man, individual man, as an 'altar', then yes, without a doubt, it is to that faith that I worship.

There are some workings of the free market and even our form of government that I would debate and discuss, but when it comes to the primacy of the individual as the basic tenet, you are correct again, I do not discuss slavery as a way of life.

If you are indeed abandoning the relationship you and I have had over the years, I find that sad. I have always considered my steadfast position and willingness to defend it, a benefit to this forum.

Ur gonna miss me when I'm gone.


Amicus

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

AMICUS

My crystal ball reveals a contraction of the American Dream. Soon enough the proletariat will be cast adrift and compelled to fend for themselves however they can. We'll become a nation of gated communities and ghettos. The residents of either will likely be shot if they leave the premises.

So looting and holdups and hijacking etc is the future of the dummies.

The gated communities are the ones that lose out in that situation.

The ghettos have more people, and thus more guns. Plus the gated communities lack the skills to fend for themselves. Most (but not all) ghetto people have the sense (for the most part) not to enrage the farmers caught in between. Bacon and cabbage for guns and bullets, it's the classic exchange system. The smart ghetto people will form up around the farms when the gated community's almighty military shows up. You saw how badly the US Army fared in Iraq and 'nam... in America they're fucked, as Americans are far better armed than the Iraqis.

The Army starts starving and is forced to make a deal to feed themselves. Guess where their loyalty will switch to? The farmers. Who are now aligned with the ghetto people smart enough to be on their side.

In the end:
The farmers achieve total pwnage. Many stupid ghetto folks get dead for harassing the farmers, but most ghetto people align with the farmers and ride their coat tails to victory. The gated community is totally fucked.

After that there is a better than 50% chance that things will descend to the level of Somalia. Except with nukes. Which means the world is soon fucked.

 

[JamesSD]

Funny story; I read The Fountainhead in high school and missed about 50% of the point she was trying to make, either through my own ignorance or drawing very different conclusions from the scenario she set-up.

Just to get it out of the way, as a novel, Atlas Shrugged is truly horrid. But The Fountainhead, while often preachy and somewhat prone to monologues, but does have at least some merit.

For me, a huge part of The Fountainhead is about the ignorance of the masses and the ills of a consumerist society that gives people what they will pay for (Capitalism) rather than something beautiful, anticipating what they need. Keating is essentially the ultimate corporate shill.

I liked Ellsworth Toohey. I agreed with most of what he spoke. His criticisms of Howard Roark are legitimate, he merely sets up a situation where Roark's hubris causes him to fail, along with his devotion to the novel's Mary-Sue, Dominique, a woman loved not for her spirit or any other redeeming characteristic besides her beauty. The failure of the naked statue is arguably a criticism of middle american puritanical values; a nude statue would barely raise an eyebrow in Far Left New York or San Francisco, but wouldn't play in most Red States.

In an act of desparation, Roark commits an act of anarchy in gross violation of legitimate property laws, the sorts of laws that are the basis of civilization. He manages to (unrealistically) sway the jury into a not-guilty verdict. Personally, I think a guilty verdict would have made for a far more interesting story, but I imagine Ms. Rand didn't want to go the direction most classic Russian novelists would have gone.

If we view Roark as a deeply flawed hero in a tragedy (rather than a Superman hero of objecivism) the novel works better. Roarks uncompromising vision is ultimately his biggest failure. It also illustrates just how stupid the masses can be, sheepishly following trends driven by corporate greed.

 

[OzoneRed]

...the novel's Mary-Sue, Dominique,...

*snicker*

 

[amicus]

Written almost 70 years ago, The FountainHead continues among the top best sellers in publishing history.

The Classic Liberal (left wing, anti business, anti capitalism) novels, usually taught at University level remain obscure and are pushed by left wing professors or would have been forgotten decades ago.

The collectivist left wing detest the works of Ayn Rand for an obvious reason:

Roark is the embodiment of the human spirit and his struggle represents the triumph of individualism over collectivism

JamesSD's Marxist interpretation and criticism of the novel is old hat and two gnerations of new readers have rediscovered Ayn Rand and keep her works before the public and before students as her work is taught in many colleges and universities.

Book Summary

The climax of The Fountainhead begins when Keating, whose career is slipping because he's been replaced by a newer trend, begs Roark to design for him plans for the new low-income housing project called Cortlandt Homes.

Keating knows he cannot solve the problems of design, and does not attempt to.

Instead, he brings the specifications to Roark. Keating requests that Roark design it and allow Keating to take the credit for it.

Roark knows that he can do it and is eager to. He also knows that he could never get approved by Toohey, who is the behind-the-scenes power on the project.

Roark agrees only on the condition that the buildings be erected exactly as he designs them; Keating agrees. Keating will receive the recognition, the money, and whatever other benefits society may confer on a man — but Roark will build
Cortlandt.

Roark designs a masterpiece, Keating submits it as his, and Toohey accepts it.

But when Roark is away on a cruise with Wynand, two of Toohey's lackeys alter Roark's design. When Roark returns, he dynamites the defaced masterpiece and allows himself to be arrested.

Significantly, he enlists Dominique's aid in the dynamiting. Whereas years earlier, she had been afraid that society would reject him, now she is not afraid to help Roark in an act for
which society may imprison him.

Roark knows that Dominique is now ready for their relationship.

Some of the most interesting conflicts Rand created involved intellectual and professinal theft and plagarism and the influence of the 'second handers', the bureaucrats, those behind the scenes politicians that have no skills but barter and trade favors based on those who can and do produce.

Secondly, the concept of romantic love between a man and a woman of the highest order that serves as a means to determine values, masculine and feminine in a relationship enabling both to respect the character of each.

]http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/The-Fountainhead-Book-Summary.id-111,pageNum-7.html#ixzz0sAH4WxhA[/url]

This article is about the Ayn Rand novel. For the film adaptation, see The Fountainhead (film). For the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed house, see Fountainhead (Jackson, Mississippi).

The Fountainhead

Early edition cover
Author Ayn Rand

Country United States

Language English

Genre(s) Philosophical novel

Publisher
Bobbs Merrill

Publication date 15 April 1943
Media type Print (Hardback & Paperback)

Pages 752
ISBN
9780451191151

The Fountainhead is a bestselling 1943 novel by Ayn Rand. It was Rand's first major literary success and its royalties and movie rights brought her fame and financial security. More than 5 million copies of the book have been sold worldwide and the work has been translated in several languages.[1]

The Fountainhead's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who chooses to struggle in obscurity rather than compromise his artistic and personal vision.

The book follows his battle to practice what the public sees as modern architecture, which he believes to be superior, despite an establishment centered on tradition-worship.

How others in the novel relate to Roark demonstrates Rand's various archetypes of human character, all of which are variants between Roark, the author's ideal man of independent-mindedness and integrity, and what she described as the "second-handers."

The complex relationships between Roark and the various kinds of individuals who assist or hinder his progress, or both, allow the novel to be at once a romantic drama and a philosophical work. By Rand's own admission, Roark is the embodiment of the human spirit and his struggle represents the triumph of individualism over collectivism.

The manuscript was rejected by twelve publishers before a young editor, Archibald Ogden, at the Bobbs-Merrill Company publishing house wired to the head office, "If this is not the book for you, then I am not the editor for you."

Despite generally negative early reviews from the contemporary media, the book gained a following by word of mouth and sold hundreds of thousands of copies. The Fountainhead was made into a Hollywood film in 1949, with Gary Cooper in the lead role of Howard Roark, with a screenplay by Rand.

Roark is the embodiment of the human spirit and his struggle represents the triumph of individualism over collectivism

An understanding of the role Ellsworth Toohey plays in the novel, will illuminate the ongoing struggle between individual interpretation of huma values and the cost/effective, pragmatic concept of sacrificing the individual to the 'greater good' of Marxist Dialectic.

Fountainhead is the fictional account of a single man with the courage to stand before the 'establishment' of his times and refuses to compromise his values and principles. Such heroic qualities in man are disdained, dissed, by modern progressive liberals, as they cannot identify with individual hopes, dreams and goals but instead adopt a 'faith' of collectivism to replace individual dreams.

Amicus

 

[Liar]

There are some workings of the free market and even our form of government that I would debate and discuss, but when it comes to the primacy of the individual as the basic tenet, you are correct again, I do not discuss slavery as a way of life.

Niether do I, nor do many other people that you ignorantly dismiss as proponents of "slavery". Only way I can explain that is that you refuse to believe that one can extrapolate (sp?) from that differently than you, draw conclusions when it comes to particulars and practical politics that differ in any way shape or form from yours, based on that tenet. Your inability to accept that is what is stinking up the room.

That and that you often base your basis of discussion on inaccurate data, like with that toilet paper thread. My point was simple; western Europe - indeed most of the EU and a bit beyond - in whatever state of Socialism it is in, is not at all depraved of a diverse consumer market. This is fact. Observable fact. Doesn't mean Socialism is morally right. It just means what it means, that modern Social Democracy and other similar policies persued in Europe does not lead to Soviet style market homogeny.

When you say the sky is green, I'm not going to accept that as a basis for any kind of conclusions, other than about your eyesight.

Here's an idea. Next time you see me or someone else "advocate slavery" in your eyes, how about assuming that we're not Stalin? And instead of prancing in on a high horse declaring the moral decay of your nemesis of the day, try and see if there's not a way to reconcile it with positive ideals. And if that fails, ask. That's what I do form time to time when I don't get what you're on about. On a good day, you don't call me a "liberal puke" and actually respond coherently.

I rarely discuss those ideals specifically, because to me they are self explanatory. One is that the right of the individual to liberty and freedom of choice trupms the privilige of the group.

One difference between you and me seems to be that you assign different values to different groups, whereas I don't see any fundamental difference between the government group, the community group the family group and the corporation group. They are all collectives of people with social, political and/or financial power over individuals, both within and outside their group. That's for instance where it would be possible to have both interresting and respectful discussion, instead of insult slinging.

Just sayin'.

 

[amicus]

Like an actor on stage, (I once played the lead in Dracula in Summer Stock), heavy make-up exaggerates facial features to carry out into the audience.

In persuasive oratory or writing, most of my career, I use such high impact words as 'slavery', for effect.

There are many degrees of oppression and freedom evident in political systems past and present and were I speaking from a political perspective, I would take those into account and most likely have a more productive conversation with you and others.

Although I had some years study in political science, I ain't one of them. I suppose one might define my position as a purist, a philosophical purist and idealist, although not necessarily an ideologist, bound to a dialectic.

I concluded long ago that my proper place, my most effective stance, was one that advocates an unsullied point of view concerning politics, economics and philosophy.

With the Senate Confirmation hearing going on in the background, I just heard mention of the laws concerning tobacco products and how government and society had a 'right' to regulate and control such substances.

My position differs somewhat as I postulate that government nor society has the right to control or regulate any substance; those choices remain with the individual.

That does not imply that I am not aware of alledged social consequences to such substances as heroin, cocaine and cannabis, for I am indeed.

I am also completely opposed to what are called, Pigouvian Laws, legislation intended to modify public behavior to satisfy preordained societal goals.

When I used the manufacture of toilet paper as an illustration, it was to point out, in a striking manner, the possible end results of a command society and a controlled environment.

Society is dynamic, always changing and the change is the result, not of central planning, but the invisible hand of millions and millions of consumers all over the world.

When I observe that society is devolving, back into a more controlled and managed status, I point that out as forcefully as I can. They are often small movements but sometimes large, very large, as the recent Obamacare legislation which, unless repealed, will effect huge changes all across the American political spectrum.

Thus I make the points with Socialized Medicine, Death Panels, each and all to emphasize a political movement in a direction I find dangerously threatening to that individual human freedom I hold as an ideal.

On this forum alone, over the years, we have delved into formal philosophy to support and defend opposite opinions, which finally ended in arcane mathematical formulae that was so abstract no one could fully comprehend the meaning.

We have also tried comparative politics over the entire spectrum of space and time to illustrate why one side was superior to the other.

Both of those avenues are chores as one cites evidence and the other refutes with a return of opposing chapter and verse from another aspect.

That was all good fun in collegiate headbanging, but it did not and does not provide solutions or even answers to contemporary events.

I won't say I have 'settled' on a particular course of debate and I may revert of a discussion of definitions and the etymology, the meaning and history of words and concepts as a means to establish a basis for discussion.

I regret you took my recitation and interpretation of post war Europe as ad hominem and personal, I can see how you might, but I was intending a continent wide association with the war years and not a personal afront.

regards....

amicus

 

[Pure]

The US gov't, 1960-present; World's Biggest Looter?

Where did this money come from? From whom was it taken?

Speech by Congressman D. Kucinich

We Are Losing Our Nation to Lies About the Necessity of War

In a little more than a year the United States flew $12 billion in cash to Iraq, much of it in $100 bills, shrink wrapped and loaded onto pallets. Vanity Fair reported in 2004 that "at least $9 billion" of the cash had "gone missing, unaccounted for." $9 billion.

Today, we learned that suitcases of $3 billion in cash have openly moved through the Kabul airport.

One U.S. official quoted by the Wall Street Journal said, "A lot of this looks like our tax dollars being stolen." $3 billion. Consider this as the American people sweat out an extension of unemployment benefits.

Last week, the BBC reported that "the US military has been giving tens of millions of dollars to Afghan security firms who are funneling the money to warlords." Add to that a corrupt Afghan government underwritten by the lives of our troops.

And now reports indicate that Congress is preparing to attach $10 billion in state education funding to a $33 billion spending bill to keep the war going.

Back home millions of Americans are out of work, losing their homes, losing their savings, their pensions, and their retirement security. We are losing our nation to lies about the necessity of war.

Bring our troops home. End the war. Secure our economy.
I gave this speech today on the floor of the House of Representatives, see the video here.

 

[Pure]

controlled substances

ami My position differs somewhat as I postulate that government nor society has the right to control or regulate any substance; those choices remain with the individual.

the following exceptions--see the "Kagan lesbian" thread-- are noted:
eggs, sperm, semen, and other such bodily fluids.

our 'minimal state' libertarian wants the state to determine how these are directed and disposed....

 

[Liar]

I regret you took my recitation and interpretation of post war Europe as ad hominem and personal, I can see how you might, but I was intending a continent wide association with the war years and not a personal afront.

regards....

amicus

I did not take your recitation and interpretation of post war Europe as ad hominem and personal. I took it as incorrect in both data point and intepretation and challenged you on it.

The ad hominem that followed when I did so, is what I took as ad hominem.

Just to get things straight.

 

[amicus]

ami My position differs somewhat as I postulate that government nor society has the right to control or regulate any substance; those choices remain with the individual.

the following exceptions--see the "Kagan lesbian" thread-- are noted:
eggs, sperm, semen, and other such bodily fluids.

our 'minimal state' libertarian wants the state to determine how these are directed and disposed....[/QUOTE]

~~~

May I patiently remind you for the 99th time, that you are beating a broken drum that makes no sound.

Any rational person that respects human life understands that the life of a child cannot be taken in place of birth control pills.

And yes, human life begins at the instant of conception...what else could it be? An 8 Ball?

If you re-read the Kagan/Lesbian piece you will discover that I affirmed her right to pursue any sexual inclination she had but not in judging the Consitutionality of issues that her preference may influence.

You advocate rights for gays, lesbians, gay marriage, any form of relationship you choose, forgetting that your viewpoints are in a distinct National Minority, yet you bluster on as if you had right on your side plus a majority.

You do not.

The Religous majority in this country believes that homosexual acts are a sin, unnatural and counter productive. You represent a vocal minority that has overstayed its welcome and may soon be returned to the closet.

Amicus

 

[Pure]

peas, pod.

amicus: The Religous majority in this country believes that homosexual acts are a sin, unnatural and counter productive. You represent a vocal minority that has overstayed its welcome and may soon be returned to the closet.

they're lucky to have you as spokesperson for their views.