Ayn Rand - Right Wing Hypocrite
- Thread starter gopher
- Start date
Yep, folks is folks. (Bet if I had 6 guesses I could name that former poster) :lol:
I get one already: I don't hack and cough up bits of my lungs, my house doesn't stink, and I don't have to die an ugly death in a hospital. That's equivalent to a tax break for me.
My thoughts on Ayn Rand:
1. she wrote fiction
2. her novels are execrable
3. the last thing we need is a philosophy that advocates MORE human selfishness.
1. she wrote fiction
2. her novels are execrable
3. the last thing we need is a philosophy that advocates MORE human selfishness.
Both fairly preventable/curable in this day and age.
Yep, this year it's vegetable fat, last year it was animal fat, next will be mineral fat....................f&&K, eat everything in moderation and work out for 3 or 4 hours a day and you have nothing to worry about. It's pretty much all sh*t, you just don't give it a chance to collect in your system. :smile:
''She was in a life and death situation battling lung cancer. There's an old adage that covers situations like this-- "Judge not lest ye be judged". :lol:And there's another one that goes something like mind your own business.''
You, like so many others on this forum, obviously are not familiar with Rand. Nor do you people understand what an impact her lies have had on the socio-political climate here in the States.
Regarding, life threatening illness, she was challenged to discuss this issue previously on the matter of Americans who went uninsured and who also suffered from illness. It was she who said they were leeches and had no business taking Federal dollars. Had you read my links you would have seen earlier references to this.
The hypocrisy of it all is that she suffered from illness because she smoked two packs of cigarettes a day and denied that smoking causes illness. Then, for an eight year period she continued to tell the world that one must NEVER take money from the government while she was taking money!
Again, you and other Canadians on this forum simply are not informed as to the true nature of this woman. That she was a liar and a hypocrite of the worse kind. That she presented a public face - one that swore that government was an evil. That her writings sell many multiples of THOUSANDS ever year and is viewed by the Tea Baggers as the Bibles of their movement. But that she lived a double life and that she refused to actually live by the standards that she held others to.
Again, as Canadians you are not aware of this. The most you can do is to read second hand accounts of these truths. Note how the Fox network which had praised her for all these years ignored these revelations. Don't expect those right wing liars to discuss this matter at any length. Why? Because they have a agenda designed to promote their ideology and they will NEVER print any truth.
None of my business, you say? Well, it is because of hypocritical ideologues like her that we do not have health care reform. At present, I do not have medical coverage though I suffer from a life threatening respiratory illness. And I am not alone in this matter. How do you think thousands of Yanks feel when we learn that we have to suffer needlessly without health care coverage when liars like her are the cause of our misery while she gets to profit from lies?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
''I may not agree with how I'm paying for it, but I am so I might as well use it right?''
But would you tell people not to use a certain road, put on a disguise, and use the road incognito for 8 years while pretending to use an alternate route? You would be laughed at if people found you out.
You, like so many others on this forum, obviously are not familiar with Rand. Nor do you people understand what an impact her lies have had on the socio-political climate here in the States.
Regarding, life threatening illness, she was challenged to discuss this issue previously on the matter of Americans who went uninsured and who also suffered from illness. It was she who said they were leeches and had no business taking Federal dollars. Had you read my links you would have seen earlier references to this.
The hypocrisy of it all is that she suffered from illness because she smoked two packs of cigarettes a day and denied that smoking causes illness. Then, for an eight year period she continued to tell the world that one must NEVER take money from the government while she was taking money!
Again, you and other Canadians on this forum simply are not informed as to the true nature of this woman. That she was a liar and a hypocrite of the worse kind. That she presented a public face - one that swore that government was an evil. That her writings sell many multiples of THOUSANDS ever year and is viewed by the Tea Baggers as the Bibles of their movement. But that she lived a double life and that she refused to actually live by the standards that she held others to.
Again, as Canadians you are not aware of this. The most you can do is to read second hand accounts of these truths. Note how the Fox network which had praised her for all these years ignored these revelations. Don't expect those right wing liars to discuss this matter at any length. Why? Because they have a agenda designed to promote their ideology and they will NEVER print any truth.
None of my business, you say? Well, it is because of hypocritical ideologues like her that we do not have health care reform. At present, I do not have medical coverage though I suffer from a life threatening respiratory illness. And I am not alone in this matter. How do you think thousands of Yanks feel when we learn that we have to suffer needlessly without health care coverage when liars like her are the cause of our misery while she gets to profit from lies?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
''I may not agree with how I'm paying for it, but I am so I might as well use it right?''
But would you tell people not to use a certain road, put on a disguise, and use the road incognito for 8 years while pretending to use an alternate route? You would be laughed at if people found you out.
Until last night "Ayn Rand" was just a name to me. I wasn't arguing about Ayn Rand per se, I was just pointing out that being against a system but acting according to the system isn't being hypocritical- any more than obeying a law you disagree with. One person doesn't really have that much influence with the possible exception of politicians which she was not. However I did read up on her and don't think I particularly like the bitch.
''Until last night "Ayn Rand" was just a name to me.''
Exactly. Just a name to you and others on this forum.
But here she continues to be regarded as a ''goddess'. Well, up to now. Had the Fox network and the rest of the right wing media reported her hypocrisy as Huffington has done, some people's viewpoints would change quite drastically.
Exactly. Just a name to you and others on this forum.
But here she continues to be regarded as a ''goddess'. Well, up to now. Had the Fox network and the rest of the right wing media reported her hypocrisy as Huffington has done, some people's viewpoints would change quite drastically.
Fixed it for you. Don't bother lumping everyone together, I read most of her works when I was in high school.
Why would you have a problem with that? If some people regard her as a goddess, I have absolutely no problem with, we all admire different traits as we all despise different traits. My knowledge of her now is from 10 minutes of reading and I never even looked into who wrote it.............she seems like a bitch to me, but that is based on very little and possibly shaky information. As I've repeated I wasn't denigrating or defending the woman just the philosophy. B.T.W. that analogy about driving on a different road is about as WHACKO as it gets.
So what's your take on the bitch? :lol:
'' My knowledge of her now is from 10 minutes of reading and I never even looked into who wrote it....''
For your enlightenment, this is what she and her disciples always stood for (in public):
Social Security is Immoral
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10857&news_iv_ctrl=1021
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said that many options were "on the table" to deal with Social Security's problems, and that he "will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer." But there is one idea he will not listen to: the idea that Social Security should be phased out and ended altogether. Why? Because like his Democrat critics, he believes that whatever Social Security’s financial problems, the program is "a great moral success."
But is it?
Social Security is commonly portrayed as benefiting most, if not all, Americans by providing them "risk-free" financial security in old age.
This is a fraud.
Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income--approximately 12%--for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries--with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.
Under Social Security, every aspect of the government's "promise" to provide financial security is at the mercy of political whim. The government can change how much of an individual's money it takes--it has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935. The government can spend his money on anything it wants--observe the long-time practice of spending any annual Social Security surplus on other entitlement programs. The government can change when (and therefore if) it chooses to pay him benefits and how much they consist of--witness the current proposals to raise the age cutoff or lower future benefits. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from him, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. He cannot count on Social Security for anything--except a massive drain on his income.
If Social Security did not exist--if the individual were free to use that 12% of his income as he chose--his ability to better his future would be incomparably greater. He could save for his retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or he could reasonably choose not to devote all 12% to retirement. He might choose to work far past the age of 65. He might choose to live more comfortably when he is young and more modestly in old age. He might choose to invest in his own productivity through additional education or starting a business.
How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual--and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the young of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to buy homes, less able to enjoy their most vital years, less able to invest in themselves. And yet Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?
The answer lies in the program's ideal of "universal coverage"--the idea that, as a recent New York Times editorial preached, "all old people must have the dignity of financial security"--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of "guaranteed" collective plan--no matter how irrational. Observe that Social Security's wholesale harm to those who would use their income responsibly is justified in the name of those who would not. The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible.
Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.
Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it--how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures.
Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on business issues. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Immoral - but not for her.
For your enlightenment, this is what she and her disciples always stood for (in public):
Social Security is Immoral
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10857&news_iv_ctrl=1021
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said that many options were "on the table" to deal with Social Security's problems, and that he "will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer." But there is one idea he will not listen to: the idea that Social Security should be phased out and ended altogether. Why? Because like his Democrat critics, he believes that whatever Social Security’s financial problems, the program is "a great moral success."
But is it?
Social Security is commonly portrayed as benefiting most, if not all, Americans by providing them "risk-free" financial security in old age.
This is a fraud.
Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income--approximately 12%--for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries--with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.
Under Social Security, every aspect of the government's "promise" to provide financial security is at the mercy of political whim. The government can change how much of an individual's money it takes--it has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935. The government can spend his money on anything it wants--observe the long-time practice of spending any annual Social Security surplus on other entitlement programs. The government can change when (and therefore if) it chooses to pay him benefits and how much they consist of--witness the current proposals to raise the age cutoff or lower future benefits. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from him, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. He cannot count on Social Security for anything--except a massive drain on his income.
If Social Security did not exist--if the individual were free to use that 12% of his income as he chose--his ability to better his future would be incomparably greater. He could save for his retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or he could reasonably choose not to devote all 12% to retirement. He might choose to work far past the age of 65. He might choose to live more comfortably when he is young and more modestly in old age. He might choose to invest in his own productivity through additional education or starting a business.
How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual--and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the young of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to buy homes, less able to enjoy their most vital years, less able to invest in themselves. And yet Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?
The answer lies in the program's ideal of "universal coverage"--the idea that, as a recent New York Times editorial preached, "all old people must have the dignity of financial security"--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of "guaranteed" collective plan--no matter how irrational. Observe that Social Security's wholesale harm to those who would use their income responsibly is justified in the name of those who would not. The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible.
Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.
Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it--how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures.
Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on business issues. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Immoral - but not for her.
Social security is both good and bad. It's very good for people who are not good at saving or managing money (I have several relatives who have hit the wall at age 65- either living in poverty or continuing to work because they have to) It's bad for people who understand investing and are disciplined enough to make a plan and stick to it. I'm not particularly interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy but I guess if she sold enough books to get rich there must be something to it. To be quite honest I don't really understand why the woman has become a subject on the forum unless she's a sainte or a demon and I suspect neither. If we want to denigrate a$$holes there's lots of bonafide ones dead and living like Charles Manson or Gary Gilmour.