Today on MSNBC with Soledad O’Brien, Debbie Wasserman Schultz walked back her line yesterday that she didn’t really know the political affiliation of Bill Burton’s Super PAC that put out that revolting ad claiming that Romney was responsible for the death of a woman. This despite the fact that Bill Burton is a former Obama spokesperson, and that DWS is the chair of the DNC, so you would think that the two have met. Today she did admit that she did know the super PAC was a democratic action committee, but that the ad was true, and this response went unchallenged by MSNBC, which from now on will be permanently referred to as the Obama reelection network. And this bit of dishonesty is just the tip of the iceberg from a party that has long ago stopped being honest with the American public and is becoming more isolated and extreme by the day. For another example of democrats unwillingness to embrace the truth, I submit to you Ryan’s reform plans on taxes and Medicare.
Lets first look at Medicare – Ryan’s plan does not at all affect anyone under the age of 55, yet just today on the Obama reelection network, the shills at MSNBC were citing the 65+demographics of the swing states and stating that Ryan’s plan to “end Medicare” as we know it, will hurt the GOP’s chances in those states. Do you suppose that they even know the plan? Considering that Jonathan Capehart was one of the pundits, and he recently admitted an ignorance of the constitution, my guess is no. But in reality, I am sure they are aware of that fact, and simply choose to lie about it to scare seniors, which is a time honored democratic tradition. Ryan’s plan also calls for means testing, a component of which is designed to give less benefits to the “rich”, or those who need it less, and more benefits to those who need it the most, and component of which is sensible and merciful, and a component of which goes unmentioned by democrats. Furthermore, the plan allows those under 55 the option to remain with the traditional plan, or to receive a voucher allowing them to use that in purchasing other health care insurance, which we all know is a “choice”, and considering that democrats pride themselves on being the party of pro choice, you would think that they would embrace this idea. But evidently the only choice democrats embrace is allowing a woman the right to kill her own baby. And they don’t consider that extreme.
Next is Ryan’s tax plan which also gives people a choice to either use the new reformed code or the existing one. In short, the new reform plan is designed to broaden the base and simplify the code. Obviously this doesn’t set well with democrats because eliminating loop holes and deductions means that the government won’t be able to pick winners and losers anymore which is also a time honored democratic tradition. The plan also calls for increasing middle class exemptions up to $39,000 for a family of four, and eliminates all double taxation on investments; ie dividends, capital gains, etc, which will allow a more free flow of money throughout the markets, creating jobs and rising incomes. The democrats however choose to simply focus on the lower rates for the rich and don’t dare tell the whole truth, because if they did, they risk actually educating their audience and in turn risk losing votes. So avoiding the truth is the only option democrats have this election cycle.
Blogs For Victory 
and this response went unchallenged by MSNBC, which from now on will be permanently referred to as the Obama reelection network.
Not really a big deal in the overall scheme of things. Hardly anyone watches MSNBC, and the few that do aren’t going to vote for Romney/Ryan under any circumstances.
True, but it is still under the NBC umbrella and many of their talking points are disseminated on NBC nightly news, the today show, etc, which enjoy a much more broader audience.
You have been warned repeatedly that this blog is not just a place for you to post insults and attacks. Post political comments or be deleted. //Moderator
You are correct, it was on CNN. So now, let’s see you continue this random act of accuracy by providing some proof of lies found on Fox.
The ball is in your court.
Typical libiot; the spokes-hole for the dimocrat party is caught (yet again) lying and they’re reduced to debating on which network the lies were told.
Good luck with that dipwad.
Democrats can’t tell the truth? The sky is blue? Water is wet? George Lucas can’t stop fiddling with the Star Wars movies?
Next you are going to tell me that Santa Clause is not real. Oh puhleez!
commies lie……..the end justifies the means……NEXT!
In contrast to Ryan’s reform plan, I failed to mention Obama’s plan, so in the interest of equal time, here is Obama’s reform plan:
Any questions?
You have to be honest Cluster. The donkyrats have a ten point plan. It goes like this,
1. Tax more
2. Spend more
3. Tax more
4. Spend more
5. Regulate more
6. Tax more
7. Spend more
8. Tax more
9. Spend more
10. Omnibus tax, spend, and regulate until the whole country looks like pyongyang.
Truth in advertising is not a donkyrat strong point.
I think Obama is on #9 right now, correct?
You have been warned repeatedly that this blog is not just a place for you to post insults and attacks. Post political comments or be deleted. //Moderator
1. gut the military…….check
2. bury us in debt…….check
3. usher in islam………check
4. usher in marxism….check
5. inact cloward-piven check
6. usher in radical homosexuality check
7. divide the people for political power check
8. back radical anarchists check
seems the kenyan Ochimpy’s regime is right on track…
I heard part of Biden’s speech today where he said Ryan is a “decent man”. Rush went on and on and on about how both Obama and Biden have set up a scenario where they can claim deniability when the long knives come out and the Dems start savaging the GOP ticket, because they both said Romney and Ryan were “decent”.
He completely missed the point, which was the sneaky way Biden slipped in the most insidious and vicious lying attacks on Ryan while making his supposedly generous comments.
I’ve been looking for a transcript of the Biden speech and can’t find it, but to summarize: He said Ryan is a “decent man”, repeated it when the crowd booed (repeat of same thing happening in Obama’s speech, reminiscent of the staged events in the last campaign such as the repeated swooning spells…) and then went on to explain that Ryan just has “different VALUES”!! In typical heavy-handed Biden fashion, he repeated it several times, to make sure everyone got it—-Ryan’s basically decent but just has different VALUES—and then went on to say this election will be about the striking difference in the VALUES of the candidates.
And no one I heard on the radio picked up on it.
Biden has been doing this for a long time. In a speech to the NEA a while back he said “..They’re decent people, [but] they have a fundamentally different view than even the previous Republican Party had.”
The same old refrain, the same smarmy smile while shoving the knife in.
But this is what the Dems have to do. They can’t run on their ideology because to admit to it would be political suicide. They can’t run on their record because it sucks. They can’t run on anything positive so all they can do is come up with various versions of “Republicans want dirty air and dirty water and senior citizens having to choose between food and medicine”.
The way they are doing it now is simply announcing, oh so piously, that we are not truly EVIL, we just have DIFFERENT VALUES .
So when they go on to explain that THEIR values are all about taking care of the poor and being fair and so on, the only logical conclusion is that since these nice things are Dem values, and we have DIFFERENT values, ours must be all about starving the poor and being unfair.
They set up this false paradigm in so many different ways, and have gotten away with it for so long, people don’t even notice any more.
Oh, we notice DWS when she spews crap like “…: Paul Ryan’s proposal that Mitt Romney has embraced to seniors premiums in Medicare and that would really force us back to the days for senior that would – that had them choosing between medicine and meals and had them choosing between healthcare and paying their rent and literally surviving..”
choosing between medicine and meals and choosing between healthcare and paying their rent and literally surviving..”
LITERALLY SURVIVING!!!!!
They are dishonest on so many levels we have stopped paying attention to the more subtle slurs because there are so many blatant ones. But it’s the subtle ones that burrow into the consciousness and lie there, unexamined, unquestioned.
And that is what LITERALLY drives me nuts. The media is constantly lying about the conservative agenda and for the most part getting away with it, and we must do everything we can to expose it and stop it.
From Newsmax today, a note on the Complicit Agenda Media
Monday, 13 Aug 2012 02:10 PM
By Patrick Hobin
A critical comment about Medicare by vice presidential pick Paul Ryan was curiously edited out of the “60 Minutes” interview which aired on Sunday night, HotAir.com reported.
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Ryan were interviewed for the program by Bob Schieffer of CBS News, who referred to a newspaper headline in Florida saying Ryan hurts Romney in the state because of his Medicare plan.
“There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,” Romney told Schieffer. “What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it’s there for current seniors. No changes, by the way, for current seniors, or those nearing retirement. But looking for young people down the road and saying, ‘We’re going to give you a bigger choice.’ In America, the nature of this country has been giving people more freedom, more choices. That’s how we make Medicare work down the road.”
According to HotAir.com, the following remark by Ryan was cut and did not air but is crucial in explaining to viewers, especially Florida seniors, that his plan does not affect senior citizens and that his own mother is a Medicare senior.
“My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida,” Ryan said. “Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they’ve organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms that have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late ’90s.”
HotAir.com called the broadcast cut “journalistic malpractice.”
“Ryan’s plan doesn’t affect those already eligible for Medicare,” Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com wrote. “In fact, one of the conservative criticisms of the plan was that he didn’t give current Medicare recipients the option to choose a private-insurance plan, as younger Americans will get once they become eligible. That’s a pretty newsworthy detail, no?”
“HotAir.com called the broadcast cut “journalistic malpractice.”
I call it par for the course for our national “journalists”.
James is no longer allowed to post here because of an unbroken record of posting nothing but attacks and insults and no actual political commentary. //Moderator
barky going to get over 300 electoral votes? LOLzer. Sure if you say so. Why should anyone believe a bigot like you, Thomas?
James, it wasn’t simply an observation of offensive reporting. It was a conscious omission of pertinent detail in order to distort the actual plan.
The fact that you don’t get that is not a surprise.
I smell goat
Neo, now that is insulting. I will not sit here and have you insulting goats that way!!
😛
Let’s not discount the fact that James is simply hoping that stupid people like himself remain in the white house. Smart young people frighten him terribly:
A video of former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles began circulating in conservative news outlets today. In the clip, the Democratic co-chair of President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform gives high praises to Paul Ryan’s budget plan. “I’m telling you, this guy is amazing. I always thought I was OK with arithmetic. This guy can run circles around me,” Bowles tells a class of students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In yet ANOTHER Biden speech, where he talks about calling Ryan, he says: (emphasis mine)
“BIDEN: I called and congratulated Congressman Ryan, who’s a good guy. He’s a decent guy. I called to congratulate him. We both talked about [how] these are stark, stark choices. The differences couldn’t be more clearly laid outthrough the selection you’re gonna hear, and the American people are gonna make a choice. It comes down to a fundamental[ly] different set of values. It’s what we value. It’s not…
AUDIENCE: (grumbling)
BIDEN: These are good guys, by the way.
AUDIENCE: (angry muttering)
BIDEN: No, no, I really mean it. I think they’re decent men.
AUDIENCE: (muttering louder)
BIDEN: But they have a different value set than we have.
Note that the stark difference is not one of ideology, one of how best to govern the nation. As a matter of fact, you won’t find either Obama or Biden willing to touch that topic. They might flutter around it at a distance, but this is the last thing they want people to be thinking about.
No, the “stark stark choices” according to Biden will be between VALUES.
That is, between the VALUES of the benign and compassionate Left and the OTHER values that are, after all, according to the new Lefty narrative, a fundamentally DIFFERENT set of values.
As this message is developed, we will undoubtedly hear those vaunted Leftist “values” filled in, in living color, and they will be wonderful wonderful values, meaning of course that those of the Right are really really NOT wonderful at all.
It’s a vicious vicious tactic an we need to jump on it and address it every time it raises its ugly head.
It’s not that we want different things, it’s that we have very different—one might even call them “stark” differences—about how to achieve them.
We want to find solutions that are compliant with the Constitution and they not only could not care less about compliance with the Constitution they promote policies that call for subversion of the Constitution.
THAT is the “different set of values” that really sets us apart from each other, and THAT is the “different set of values” we need to constantly describe.
Amazona, by Paul Ryan’s own declaration Ayn Rand’s influence on his own thinking was formative – she was the single person whose ideas most influenced his decision to enter politics. As recently as three years ago Paul Ryan credited Ayn Rand for doing the best job of anybody to build a moral case for capitalism. He claimed, “What’s happening today in government, in the world, in America, is as if we’re living in an Ayn Rand novel right now.”
Ayn Rand directly and literally equated ethics with self interest. She said all religion was “a sign of a psychological weakness. I regard it as an evil.” She called capitalism and altruism incompatible; moreover she went so far as to speak of “the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces.”
On the other hand Jesus Christ said “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
Which of couse was why Ayn Rand despised Christianity. She famously said “I am done with the monster of ‘we,’ the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: ‘I.'”
(Mark, if you’re reading please take note of this. You often have spoken about how this very attitiude lies at the root of so much evil today.)
While in very recent days we’ve seen Paul Ryan backpedal from his adulation of Ayn Rand, there can be no question that her philosophy permeates his thinking and significantly influences his policy priorities. When Joe Biden says Paul Ryan has a different set of values he’s not just pulling random ideas out of the ether – he’s referencing Ryan’s own words, and the record of Ryan’s most important historical mentor, Ayn Rand. He does have a very different set of values from most Americans today.
While it might be forgiven high school or even college students to be seduced briefly by the ideology of a narcissist like Ayn Rand (reading about her personal life will only confirm this descriptor), her philosophy really doesn’t merit a place in our nation’s economic schema.
I fully understand you guys don’t respect Paul Krugman, but at least he’s a real economist and here’s what he had to say: “[Paul] Ryan hasn’t crunched the numbers; he has just scribbled some stuff down without checking at all to see if it makes sense. He asserts that he can cut taxes without net loss of revenue by closing unspecified loopholes; he asserts that he can cut discretionary spending to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge, without saying how; he asserts that he can convert Medicare to a voucher system, with much lower spending than now projected, without even a hint of how this is supposed to work.”
I would suggest Ryan is not operating from any sound economic theory, or even from simple accounting principles so much as from Ayn Randian ideology, wrapped up in a smart-sounding package for consumption by the unthinking masses. We’re about to see how all that flies with the electorate.
dennis, there is painting with a broad brush and then there is just throwing a whole can of paint at something. You extrapolate so wildly sometimes I think you are putting us on.
Are you aware that Ayn Rand’s novels had many themes? Are you aware that one can become interested in capitalism while rejecting another theme in the same novel, such as atheism? That one can admire individuality, as shown in her books, without succumbing to her overall praise of selfishness—but still find the exposition of selfishness as a virtue to be thought-provoking even if not convincing.
Why do you have such a hard time understanding that an appreciation for a part is not the same thing as an unquestioning adulation of the whole?
I read a lot. In one book I might really appreciate the literary skill of the author, thoroughly reject his political premises, resonate with the spiritual aspect of the theme, find part of the plot derivative and trite, but enjoy the development of the relationship among the characters.
By your standards, if I were to ever tell an interviewer that the book was what got me interested in (fill in the blank) you would spend endless hours trying to convince strangers that this meant I fully and wholly accepted and approved of and even adopted every aspect of the book.
I might look at one of your stained glass pieces and think it showed an interesting and creative approach to the subject but that the execution was sloppy and amateurish, but even with this caveat I might someday tell people it inspired me to learn to make things of stained glass—and someone like you would then announce forever and ever that I lack the discernment to know poor workmanship because my statement did not go into exquisite detail about every aspect of your work and what I liked and what I didn’t.
One could read Marx and become passionate about politics, and you would take that to mean that he accepted the premises therein, when in fact the writings merely showed him that he needed to learn more about politics in general because even to a political novice the ideas sounded wrong.
You work far too hard to read meaning into things where it simply does not exist.
You continue this habit of inventing things when you say: “When Joe Biden says Paul Ryan has a different set of values he’s not just pulling random ideas out of the ether – he’s referencing Ryan’s own words, and the record of Ryan’s most important historical mentor, Ayn Rand. He does have a very different set of values from most Americans today. ”
Oh, bull. Did you READ the speech Biden made to the NAACP? It is pretty specific about what he claims are the different values of the Right, though because he did not use the word “values” every time but substituted words like “vision” I am sure you can and probably will quibble that he meant something else there, too.
What makes you think that Joe Biden ever linked a single political idea of Ryan’s to the writings of Ayn Rand?
Yeah, Krugman is a “real economist” and Eddie the Eagle was a real ski jumper, but Krugman’s economic theories are disputed by other “real economists” whose theories are actually supported by fact. Krugman is a perfect example of Sowell’s observation that an “intellectual” is someone whose sole product is ideas, and that he gets to keep the title even when his ideas are always wrong.
Sowell, by the way, is a “real economist”.
But I can see why you have an affinity for Krugman—he, too, just makes stuff up: ” “[Paul] Ryan hasn’t crunched the numbers; he has just scribbled some stuff down without checking at all to see if it makes sense. ” ” Just as you have invented the wackadoo theory that Ryan is working, as you claim, from an “…Ayn Randian ideology…..” You really are kindred spirits, alike in your petty nastiness as well as in your conviction that your sour fantasies have anything to do with reality.
I don’t know what has you so wound up about Ayn Rand and so obsessed with linking her to Paul Ryan but as you expound more and more on less and less you do appear to be quite delusional.
dennis, as you seem quite convinced that Ryan’s mention of Ayn Rand means a wholehearted acceptance of everything she ever wrote, thought or said, can we assume that you also believe that Obama’s fascination with Marx and Marxists and Alinsky form his current political identity and ideology?
Paul Ryan, interviewed by National Review Online, April 26th, 2012.
Really sad that in an article pointing out that Democrats can’t be honest that you had to use a dishonest attack…
No Catholic who attends Mass on a regular basis and has any bare understanding of Catholic teaching can be a devotee of Ayn Rand. Its just not possible – as Ryan is a practicing Catholic, you should have checked on Catholic views regarding philosophies like Rand’s where you would have found them rejected and this would have at least given you a grain of salt when you went to some liberal hit-site and found the story claiming that Ryan is a big fan or Rand’s.
As for me, I never even got to the point of reading Rand’s trash – I happened upon a review of her work where it was reported that she once said to William F. Buckley, Jr., “you are too smart to believe in God”…which showed her to not only be an idiot, but an arrogant idiot, in to the bargain. Once I had that, I knew there was nothing worthwhile in anything she wrote.
dennis, you claim that Rand “… called capitalism and altruism incompatible…”
Is that all she ever said about it?
Are you sure, really really sure, that this is what inspired Ryan?
For that matter, what was the context of the statement? For example, was it that capitalism, as part of a political system, should remain separate from altruism, as a personal act?
Much as the Founding Fathers set up our nation’s central government for the purpose of providing security and order, and not for virtue, which was purposely left to the individual.
“…she was the single person whose ideas most influenced his decision to enter politics. …”
Cite your source, please, and detail WHICH of her ideas “…most influenced his decision to enter politics. …”
Mark, I already had the quote you cited; it changes nothing. Your assertion that “No Catholic who attends Mass on a regular basis and has any bare understanding of Catholic teaching can be a devotee of Ayn Rand” is quaintly idealistic, but Paul Ryan shoots a big hole through it. Of course Ryan is now obligated to distance himself from Ayn Rand. But he unequivocally declared “if I had to credit one thinker, one person [for entering public service], it would be Ayn Rand.”
As recently as 2009 Paul Ryan also said “Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most.”
Here’s video for that, with additional buttressing of Ryan’s belief in Ayn Rand’s philosophy: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1191939045695
She famously said “I am done with the monster of ‘we,’ the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: ‘I.’” –Dennis
When I read this quote and the responses I felt that there is one major point missing from this discussion which Ayn Rand constantly harped on in Atlas Shugs—“we” as in the collective and “I” the individual. Dennis, have you even read the novel? It does have an eerie parallel to today where Obama has taken over part of manufacturing with Gv’ment Motors and in doing so violated a hundred years of bankruptcy law. You know, stiffing the bond holders and rewarding his labor buddies. He thought it was so wonderful (even though the taxpayer is still screwed) that he wants to do it to all industry.
“We” is the collective term of the socialist world run amuck and this country was founded on inalienable rights—not from Government who cannot bestow rights but rather from the Creator who can. “I” is the individual which every founding document relates to. Ayn Rand is quite correct with “I am done with the monster of ‘we,’ the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.”
dennis, as you seem quite convinced that Ryan’s mention of Ayn Rand means a wholehearted acceptance of everything she ever wrote, thought or said, can we assume that you also believe that Obama’s fascination with Marx and Marxists and Alinsky form his current political identity and ideology?
I would LOVE to hear Dennis’ response to this.
db, that is an excellent and thoughtful analysis and it points out the importance of context. Thank you.
Dennis,
I see nothing in that video which indicates that Ryan is a devotee of Ayn Rand…
Please quote a place where Biden “……referenced Ryan’s own words and the record of Ryan’s most important historical mentor, Ayn Rand.”
For that matter, support your claim that Ayn Rand WAS Ryan’s “…most important historical mentor…” (sic) Do you mean “influence” or “inspiration”? I was not aware that Ayn Rand was even around to “mentor” anybody, but then, you are the one obsessed with her so perhaps you have even more secret information about her, as you
do about Ryan.
Really really secret information that only you and Joe know……..
Ama, there are multiple sources for everything I cited, however B4v only allows a single link per post. The authenticity of quotes is hardly the issue – it’s whether or not it’s fair to attribute Ryan’s economic policy to Ayn Rand. I submit it’s exactly where he’s coming from (perhaps up until the moment he was tapped for VP): ““The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.”
I’ll use my one alloted quote here to source that statement, as per your request. I wouldn’t want to infer that you’re lazy, but one quick Google would prove there are a slew of links for it. http://nymag.com/news/features/paul-ryan-2012-5/index2.html Also ref. my video link and response to Mark.
Best you can do is an opinion piece? You know what they say about opinions ~ don’t you?
Biden lays out the claims that are going to be at the heart of the Dem campaign to convince America that this election is not about the best way to achieve goals we all find important, but that the goals of the Right are harsh,racist and malignant.
http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/07/12/transcript-vp-joe-bidens-speech-at-the-2012-naacp-convention/
It will come as no surprise that this speech, too, contains the refrain:
“Again, these guys aren’t bad guys. They just have a fundamentally different view.”
Of course the speech lays out the Dem version of what those “fundamentally different views” are, and it is one lie after another, more hate-mongering and fear-mongering.
And we will be seeing it repeated constantly until the election, and probably after, as well, in a Dem attempt to poison the well when Romney is elected.
Great observation Amazona. I feel a thread developing
Thanks, Cluster. The more references I find to this “stark contrast in values” theme the more I agree with you–this is an insidious effort at semantic infiltration and I think every single time it appears it should be attacked and shot down.
Though I have to say, when I wrote those posts I hardly expected a response claiming that Joe Biden’s literary background led him to associate Ryan’s “different values” with Ayn Rand.
Wow—sure didn’t see THAT coming!
Actually, the only reference I have run across is Chris “Tingle up/down my leg” Mathews mentioning Ayn Rand during a Scarborough interview. A minion talking with another minion on a show with ratings lower than Congress. Makes sense then that Dennis (1 of the 3 last viewers) picks it up and tries to run with it. Oh, that and the other minions and their opinion pieces.
The Romney campaign does have a fundamentally different view. In outlining the defining issue of the times, Paul Ryan refers explicitly to Ayn Rand’s “fantastic” explanation of the “morality of capitalism” and “morality of individualism”. Ryan unequivocally says, “this to me is what matters most.”
As to whether Ryan’s view is morally superior or morally deficient, well… Notwithstanding what the Catholic bishops think, it will be interesting to see what the electorate thinks about that. See https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1191939045695
Of course, Amazona, realizing how sweetly forgiving you’ve been of people who have had the most incidental connection to socialist organizations or rhetoric in the past, perhaps we should be more forgiving of Paul Ryan’s fervent accolades for Ayn Rand’s ideas – n’est-ce pas?
dennistooge
, perhaps we should be more forgiving of Paul Ryan’s fervent accolades for Ayn Rand’s ideas
the LIAR LIES, and the idiot believes his own lies, but you denny are far beyond that.
You ignore the CPUSA (donk party) leftist communist views, you ignore the piven cloward strategy being played right in front of our eyes by saul alinsky devotees. You ignore the radical homosexual agenda fostered by a dope addled accused homosexual. You ignore the fact that islam is being raised to huge new standards right in our very white house. You ignore the intentional fanning of racial hatred and division by this racist regime and their radical leftist union thugs.
YOU then LIE and make false accusations against two very devoted Christian men who are trying to salvage what is left of this former great nation and what do you do? bear false witness against them.
You are worse than a wolf in sheeps clothing….you are an ambassador for the devil himself.
dennistooge
you seemed to MISS THIS denny………….
**********“I reject her philosophy,”********** Ryan says firmly. ************“It’s an atheist philosophy.************
It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,”
who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge.********** “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,”************he says.
the devils advocate dennis caught in another leftist smear and outright LIE!!
the devils advocate caught in another lie and smear…..
HUH??? Whattttt?
Ryan protesters turn physical…
drudge……..
OBAMA: ‘A New America In Which Prosperity Is Shared’…
RYAN: ‘We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes’…
MSNBC host: Paul Ryan quoting Thomas Jefferson a ‘lovely thing’ for ‘a wealthy white man’…
the knives are out and the brown shirts are gearing up.
Neo, of course prosperity is shared. We prosper and they will share it. You don’t actually think people like Thomas, dennis, bomber mitchie, and watson will ever produce anything other than dependency do you?
The only question I have is how much longer the proggies will wait before they start walking into other peoples homes and take their fair share of someone else wealth?
Neo, denny did not miss that quote. Denny is doing what he does best – accepts only what he wants to and rejects anything that turns is arguments into meaningless pap.
If we use denny’s logic, then obAMATEUR’s admiration for Alinsky, his Marxist mentors and professors (who he credits and admires in his books) would also define obAMATEUR. But don’t expect denny to be consistent when it comes to his pResident.
Denny, being the mindless unthinking drone that he is, has admitted here that he will not criticize the pResident here under any circumstances. This self admitted FACT defines who denny is, which is pathetic in itself.
GMB
The only question I have is how much longer the proggies will wait before they start walking into other peoples homes and take their fair share of someone else wealth?
during and after the collapse.
dennis, I do realize that when someone like you develops an obsession it will never be shaken.
I pointed out that Ayn Rand represented many different ideas, and that Paul Ryan has expressed admiration for two of them while steadfastly rejecting the others. You yourself quote him saying that he was impressed by her explanations of the morality of capitalism and individuality. So?
You apparently find both to be immoral. And this is no surprise. A collectivist who constantly and stridently preaches the “morality” of redistributionism is hardly going to accept the proposal that either capitalism or individualism is moral.
And that is OK. You get to have your own political and philosophical views.
What I object to is the gross dishonesty in your repeated defenses of the Leftist tactic of setting up an either/or paradigm, of their callous effort to create the false illusion that the basic goals (phrased as “values”) of the Right are somehow contrary to their own, which they define as all that is good. This leaves the unthinking with the inevitable conclusion that if the Left’s “values” are good, and the Right’s are different, then the Right’s are bad.
This IS their strategy, and what I object to is your determination to insert YOUR own prejudices and obsessions into the discussion, applying them to the tactics of the Left.
First you take the admiration of a man for two of the many ideas put forth by an author, dismissing his clearly and repeatedly stated rejection of her other philosophies, and claim that his acceptance of some of her concepts means acceptance of all.
This in itself is deeply dishonest and therefore deeply immoral.
Then you build upon this dishonesty and immorality by expanding your own distortions and projecting them upon others. You take your own distaste for the philosophies of Ayn Rand, lumping them all together so her economic theories are the same as her religious theories which are the same as her social theories which are the same as her philosophical theories, you falsely claim that someone else has admired everything she has ever said even though he has repeatedly stated that he does not, and then you apply this hodgepodge of your own bias to a callous and calculated political smear tactic in an effort to justify it by explaining it as true based upon YOUR conflation of fact.
It/you are just plain nuts.
We know that your pathology involves long,detailed and passionate defenses of your own positions, and that they are unshakable, being based on emotion and therefore unassailable by fact.
But there is one thing that completely blows your elaborate and bizarre fiction out of the water——that is, that the Left makes the same claims about Mitt Romney.
That is, that he is a DECENT man. Really, folks—-a DECENT man. His values are just a stark contrast to those of the Left. Yes, although MITT ROMNEY is a DECENT man, he simply has very different values.
Republicans are DECENT people. It’s just that their VALUES are so wildly different from those of the Left.
Anyone else could see the tactic—after all, it is pretty blatant.
First is the repeated and emphasized use of the word DECENT.
Not actually GOOD, you understand, but moderately acceptable. Just DECENT. This faint acknowledgement of falling short of actual evil is delivered with a hint of hesitation, as if it require some thought and effort to come up with a word that is not overtly negative, and the vague and tepid DECENT is all that would come to mind.
“How do you like the pie? Well, it’s not good, it’s not delicious, it’s not yummy, but it’s DECENT”
And then, having set up the perception that the subject of this faint praise is not really all that bad, the knife goes in—but you see, as DECENT as he is/they are, it’s just that the VALUES are so different. Such a STARK difference. As a matter of fact, this whole election is about choosing BETWEEN the values of the Left and those oh-so starkly and dramatically DIFFERENT “values” of the Right.
And in these speeches, and in others, the “values” of the Left are laid out. Why, they are for FAIRNESS, and they believe in EQUALITY, and of course they are all about not being RACIST, and theyare for the “working man” and the “middle class” and they are not at war with women, blah blah blah blah blah.
This is a full-blown, callous, calculated tactic to malign the motives and characters of every single person who might vote for anyone on the Right. They have set up a paradigm in which you either share and support the VALUES of the Left, or you reject them and have values that are the opposite.
And none of this, not a word of it, not a hint of it, has the least little thing to do with Ayn Rand.
For someone who constantly preaches about “morality” you are the least honest person imaginable.
AS IF we need yet another example of dennis’s dishonesty, here is a little gem:
“..Paul Ryan’s fervent accolades for Ayn Rand’s ideas …”
Sure sounds as if that rascal Paul Ryan has repeated “accolades” for ALL of “Ayn Rand’s ideas”, doesn’t it?
And really, all you have to do, to write something like that, is to LIE.
Soooooo MORAL
dennis coyly simpers: “Of course, Amazona, realizing how sweetly forgiving you’ve been of people who have had the most incidental connection to socialist organizations or rhetoric in the past…”
Why, denny, how DARLING of you to remember my oft-repeated admiration for David Horowitz.
Or will you now nitpick and claim that he doesn’t count, not having had “….the most incidental connection to socialist organizations or rhetoric…” having been a red diaper baby, an avowed and official Communist, editor of Ramparts, and supporter of the 1960s Black Panthers?
At the other end of your snarky little spectrum, an “incidental connection” to “rhetoric”, there is my observation that ex-Liberal Dennis Miller is HOT.
In there somewhere is my own self-forgiveness for my youthful flirtation with the Left, before I realized that Lefties were full of it and couldn’t even define, much less defend, their “positions”, while conservatives could, and did.
But denny, tell us—-are you now claiming that Obama had only “…. the most incidental connection to socialist organizations or rhetoric in the past…”?
If so, please go on.
Let me help.
Seeking out Marxist students and professors
Reading Marx
Reading and admiring Alinsky and teaching his tactics to other community agitators.
Seeking out people like Ayers and Dorhn
Working to implement Ayers’ vision of educational “reform” which was to concentrate not on achievement but on indoctrinating activist beliefs
Seeking out and appointing Communists, Marxists and Mao fans for his cadre of “czars”
Membership in a socialist organization
When I wrote this thread – Democrats Just Can’t Be Homest – I had no idea Dennis would provide us with a much better example than even Debbie Wasserman Schults, Biden, Obama, or any member of the MSM. Thank you Dennis for crystallizing liberals lack of character and disregard for the truth.
I would like to use your slippery logic though and apply it to Obama. Please tell us all about Frank Marshall Davis and Obama’s embrace and acceptance of everything he ever stood for. Looking forward to it.
Cluster, I think we need to remember that while the comments of Biden and Obama, et al, are part of a carefully planned campaign of the Politics of Personal Destruction, dennis’s comes from a strange and downright creepy pathology marked by his overweening ego based on his conviction of moral superiority.
We routinely have people come here to lecture us on vague accusations of conservatives being bad, but dennis goes into great and excruciating detail on his interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, challenging the right of conservatives to call themselves Christians or at least the right to claim the nation is based on Christian principles if we don’t accept his insistence that our nation should be held to same standards God placed on the ancient nation of Israel, blahblahblahblahblah.
He’s obsessive, and now he has this Ayn Rand thing to fret and fuss over, and now he is working out this elaborate theory in which Joe Biden (who appears to have never read a book in his life) is basing his political strategy on an analysis of the impact of Ayn Rand on the personal philosophy of Paul Ryan as seen through the prism of his political beliefs.
I fear we are stuck with dennis and his delusional ramblings but I really believe we need to pay careful attention to the strategy of the Left as shown in their new tactic of declaring conservatives DECENT but just so very very very very DIFFERENT in their “values”.
Honest people agree that we all want clean air, clean water, an end to racism, protection for the vulnerable and helpless, security for the aged, safety, national security, etc. Honest people agree that the debate lies not in what we want but in how we think we should achieve it.
I find this new tactic quite despicable, though quite predictable, given the other examples of purposeful divisiveness that have marked this regime’s approach to gaining and retaining power.
Dave,
Those are two complementary comments. Allow me to dumb that down for you.
Democrats are hoping to convince voters that conservatives don’t share the same lofty values, when in fact we do. We just have very different ideas on how to achieve those ideals.
On the other hand, democrats demonstrate their disregard for the constitution nearly every day through their policies and rhetoric. Conservatives hope to return to a more constitutional based government. So again, same values, different constitutional beliefs.
Did you get that sport?
Moderator note: Dave has repeatedly violated blog guidelines by posting nothing but attacks and insults without participating in actual political discourse so his posts are marked as spam and automatically removed when the blog is scanned for spam. Legitimate bloggers may respond to his posts when they appear but his posts will disappear when identified as spam.
Just for you dennis.
Oops……
Senate rejects Obama budget in 99-0 vote
House Votes 414-0 to Reject Obama’s Budget Plan
uh uh i uh i …..republicans…uh Bush…uh uh……
more lies of the fascist intolerant left
Southern Poverty Law Center, Homofascists Target Mississippi Museum
http://scottfactor.com/
DECLARE ***WAR*** ???
LGBT COALITION DECLARES WAR ON RYAN
WND |
“LGBT COALITION DECLARES WAR ON RYAN
WND |”
Just more of that “new tone in politics” we hear so much about from the communists. Nothing to see here, move along.
BREAKING – MUST CREDIT ACE OF SPADES: Paul Ryan’s Secret Love Child Found
That was a short honeymoon.
😛
http://minx.cc/?post=331902
GMB
Heyyyyyyy
my snarky comparison to a forker disappeared……damn cyber space…. 🙂
OR
was it the……SHADOW??????? (eery music in background)
The state of our beloved GOP is so pathetic. The last two times out there has been more love and inspiration from our party for the Vice Presidential candidate than the guy at the top of the ticket. Do you think with Reagan the blogs would have been all a buzz with the greatness of George Bush Sr.? No, it was Reagan that we wanted.
The writing is on the wall. Once again the base would rather have the guy in the VP spot be the top man. Once again look for stagnant republican turnout and an independent electorate that can’t make up their minds.
Hmmm, jar jar biden speaks before a “crowd” of 600 some people. Mitt/Paul before a crowd of 15,000 with thousands turned away at events over the weekend.
I do believe people are making up their minds.
Yeah, the Mitt/Paul turnout was nothing compared to the Palin/McCain turnouts and how did that work for us?
Very true that Palin drew big crowds in 2008, as she still does today. But if you recall Obama/Biden drew even bigger crowds at the very same time.
Today Obama can’t fill a beer tent, and Biden is making campaign speeches to crowds of 600 hired loyalists from Rent-a-Mob!
If this were an American Idol contest Doug, I think the recent crowds for Romney/Ryan vs those of Obama/Biden tell you everything you need to know – R&R will win by a landslide.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76017.html
But this will be a referendum on Obama’s ideology, and that too won’t turn out well for your side, but good luck with that. See you in November.
The state of our beloved GOP is so pathetic.
Just exactly what state would you like to return to, Doug?
The state where the vision of the leader’s of our party recieved admiration from not only the GOP base but also independents. Instead, we are stuck in teenage girl mode….doing everything we think we can to try to be liked by others. The GOP establishment throws out the moderates and then tries to appease the base.
The VP slot should not be the rockstar of the GOP base, the nominee should be. The Nominee should be the one with the vision and steadfastness.
Yeah, they’ll turn out for Mitt/Ryan en masse to hear them speak, but the independents don’t vote based on the VP nominee and the base doesn’t turn out to vote in a moderate president no matter how conservative the VP candidate is. That’s just not how it happens.
doug, I think the base is happy with Romney as our candidate. We don’t tend to be too fan-clubby so there was not a lot of swooning over him. This was a rational business decision and not a popularity contest.
I for one had a little trepidation about who he would choose as a running mate, because I saw some potential problems with some of the often-named possibilities—–Rubio and Jindal, for reasons often stated, and others for other reasons. I think a lot of people felt the same way.
So I don’t think the new enthusiasm is just about seeing Ryan as a pop star outshining Romney, but more as relief that the right man was picked and eagerness to get on with the campaign.
Until the choice was made we weren’t sure about the direction of the campaign, so we were all in kind of a holding pattern. Now the direction is clear, and we can unleash our optimism and energy in a focused way.
I see the excitement being about the slate, not just about Ryan. He is getting the attention now because of the slimy and despicable blitzkrieg of outrageous attacks on him that erupted at the announcement of him as running mate.
Amazona,
The ‘rational business decision’ in picking Romney was really about picking the one guy that we thought could win because he was the most moderate and therefore could appeal to the most democrats.
That is not a rational business decision in my opinion. That is a ‘repeat the poor business decisions that were done before and hope the results change’ business decision.
Basically we had the opportunity to get a 32/34/34 D/I/R split for the general election with the way the economy is and now we are headed for a 34/36/30 split because of the Romney pick.
Couple that with the fact that he is not a visionary pick (though Ryan could be) then the I-35 vote doesn’t split enough in our favor to offset the D/R split.
Romney/Paul is not going to increase party identification for the R’s and that was the one low hanging fruit that was ripe for the taking.
Doug,
I can only speak for myself, but you are dead wrong. I supported Romney last time around, and am a big supporter this time as well. I don’t support him because of his “moderate”, “he can win” notion either. I support him because I want a CEO to run this country. We need a CEO to navigate the muddled labyrinth that is the federal government and to stream line it. That it was one of my top priorities.
Cluster,
Be real now. You were a big Newt fan and at one point thought he would wipe the board with Obama. You support Romney because he is the GOP nominee. If it were Newt or anyone else you would say that you support them because of X or X.
There are those, such as yourself, that will step over broken glass to vote for any candidate that has the ‘R’ by it’s name. One in five will do the same, however that isn’t the group that determines the election.
It’s the one in ten republican voter that will step through broken glass to vote for the one with the ‘R’ if it’s the right one with the ‘R’.
And it’s the one in ten that makes up the portion of the independent voters that could swing one way or another depending on who the nominee is. If they swing en masse like with Obama and Reagan, then there is a 5 to 8 point advantage to one candidate from the independents…otherwise it’s only 0-2 points.
Doug,
I take offense to your pious opinion that I would “walk over glass” to vote for someone with an R behind their name. I have stated on many occasions that I voted for Clinton in ’96, so please don’t pretend that you know who I am. I have always liked Newt, but agreed with Spook early on that Newt didn’t have the temperament to be President.
If people such as yourself would actually read past the headlines, and stop ascribing ridiculous notions to people, you would realize the mess we are in, and that there is only one person to really vote for this time around.
spook
he is a RUE….er ron paul bot
“Yeah, the Mitt/Paul turnout was nothing compared to the Palin/McCain turnouts and how did that work for us?”
doug, those zerobama/biden turnouts were even bigger…just saying
soooo doug is a pauli bot?
figures almost as looney as a Ubamabot.
uhhhhh, no. Although if it came down to Ron Paul or Romney I would have voted for Paul — but of all the candidates in the primary, Paul was my second to last choice. So, no, not a Ron Paulbot (though I do like his kid).
Just telling it like I see it, whether you want to hear it or not doesn’t bother me.
J.R. dennis, as you seem quite convinced that Ryan’s mention of Ayn Rand means a wholehearted acceptance of everything she ever wrote, thought or said, can we assume that you also believe that Obama’s fascination with Marx and Marxists and Alinsky form his current political identity and ideology?
There’s no rational reason to make such an assumption.
Paul Ryan just three years ago said “Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism.” She was by his own definition the one thinker who most influenced his entry into politics. These are not statements of casual admiration – she was a primary influence, a guiding star for the young Ryan. He has continued to give her books to people over the years, and encouraged his staffers and others to soak up her philosophy.
I find no evidence of a similar fascination with Marx or Alinsky on the part of Obama. Can you document any recent, or even old, statements by Barack Obama where he praises either of them as unabashedly as Paul Ryan has praised Ayn Rand? Does he give out copies of The Communist Manifesto or The Portable Marx, or encourage people to absorb either of their philosophies?
As I inferred before, it would be easy to shrug it off if Ryan had an early fascination with Ayn Rand and moved on. Db, I read Ayn Rand years ago but found her writing turgid and pretentious, very hard to get through. The characters were neither believeable nor likable to me. Clearly Paul Ryan’s admiration for Rand isn’t literary, it’s philosophical – and Ayn Rand’s philosophy emerges from a world view where self is the only god and conventional morality is held in contempt.
For what it’s worth I see little similarity between Marx and Alinsky, J.R., and wonder why you lump them together. No less a conservative icon than William F. Buckley called Saul Alinsky “very close to being an organizational genius.” It’s easy to see why Obama might have found his writings useful as a community organizer.
He was hardly a communist – in a Playboy inteview published in1972 Alinsky said, ” I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it’s Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as ‘that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you’re right.’ If you don’t have that, if you think you’ve got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.”
That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
And thanks for the LOVE Ama, I can feel it all the way down to my toes.
I’m curious, why would you accept Alinsky’s assertion that he rejects the tenants of communism, but not the assertion of Ryan that her rejects the tenants of the Objectiviist?
Since, as you point out, Alinsky never objected to the the communist view of society and human nature; indeed singing its praises in his book Rules for Radicals, but objected only to the “rigid dogma”.
In effect, Alinsky claimed he rejected Communism because he didn’t like attending meetings. Meanwhile; to Quote Ryan,
Also, I’m compelled to point out, Ayn Rand would be no fan of Paul Ryan. She was openly disdainful of Ronald Reagan, and completely rejected (often) the notion that “Our rights come from nature and God, not from government.”
But, if you think Ayn Rand is the way to stop the Ryan Express; good luck with that. A rather obscure political tactic, don’t you think? But it does fit your Alinsky mold though, hold the “enemy” to a standard you yourself cannot maintain and most people wouldn’t understand.
JR’s inference was that Obama was a fan of Marx and Alinsky, so the real issue is whether Obama in fact does (or has recently) sung the praises of Marx and Alinsky, as Ryan has of Rand. My observation of Alinsky’s philosophy was primarily to draw a distinction between Alinsky and Marx.
And (to repeat myself) I’m already familiar with Ryan’s recent repudiation of Rand’s atheism. Unfortunately it’s of limited persuasiveness, coming after so many years of singing her praises – even so far as lauding her “fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism.” To describe Ayn Rand’s philosophy in the same sentence with “morality” of any kind, particularly the “morality of capitalism” is a telling juxtaposition.
I don’t feel any compunction to stop the Ryan express, as you call it. I was just curious to see how you’d spin Ryan’s devotion to Ayn Rand, and am even more curious to see how it flies with the electorate. Of course many won’t even know who Rand is, but Ryan’s high praise of her ideas might motivate others to investigate and learn a little more about her.
No, what’s “telling” is your ability to twist into contortions to accept Alinsky’s repudiation of the Marxist fanaticism without repudiating the philosophy, and rejection of Ryan’s rejection of the thinking of Ayn Rand in word and deed.
But, again I tell you, if you truly believe that Romney/Ryan can be stopped by picking some literary fly shit out of the pepper, knock yourself stupid; anyone convinced by such a flimsy connection shouldn’t be voting anyway.
“I’m already familiar with Ryan’s recent repudiation of Rand’s atheism. Unfortunately it’s of limited persuasiveness, coming after so many years of singing her praises – even so far as lauding her “fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism.”
In other words, you just ignore the facts and stick with your fantasies. (I just corrected a typo which had that word as “rantasies” but upon reflection I think the typo more accurate.)
Yes, yes, we know, we GET IT…you are offended by a reference to capitalism as moral. But if you go back a step to the belief that freedom is a God-given right, then to the understanding that capitalism is the economic expression of freedom, then the statement that capitalism is moral is quite consistent.
Therefore, Ryan’s repudiation of Rand’s atheism is the consistent position, and hers—of finding morality in an expression of a God-given right and then denying the existence of God—is the inconsistent one.
BTW, no one is trying to convince YOU of anything, so your obdurate clinging to your delusions is of no import. It’s just an interesting exercise in deconstructing a delusional fantasy. You see, one can be inspired to action even by something one knows is inherently BS.
dennis—how “recently”?
Not very long ago Obama was teaching the writings and tactics of Alinksy to new students of community activism, at the same time he was funneling Annenberg funds to further communist Ayers’ educational vision, which was to decrease emphasis on scholastic achievement and to focus, instead, on indoctrinating students to become political activists. (And that is not a typo—Ayers refers to himself as a “small-c communist”.)
As this was near the time we can assume Obama was at least playing a role in the writing of his alleged autobiography, the title of which explained the dreams he got FROM his father—that is, to work against the might of the United States and to further socialism—-I think we can see a pretty distinct commitment to a specific political identity.
“My observation of Alinsky’s philosophy was primarily to draw a distinction between Alinsky and Marx.”
And for your next trick you can draw a distinction between water and wet.
From http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm (emphasis mine)
Notes on Saul Alinsky and Neo-Marxism:
Alinsky’s tactics were based, not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.
Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins’s wrath by suggesting that Lenin’s revolutionary plan wouldn’t work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish.
Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:
“By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible…. Gramsci’s master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity’s transcendent God.”
From Rules for Radicals. (Hint: It was written by Saul Alinsky)
“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10
Read this again:
“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10
When I went over this I was reminded of some other Alinksy teachings, which do not overtly reference Marxism but which might resonate with those of us who have been watching the antics of the Obama crowd.
“The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns…. All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new.” p.116
And this—-
“ “The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.” p.117
Read, watch and learn…….
“…Ryan’s high praise of her ideas might motivate others to investigate and learn a little more about her.”
I guess we should correct that so it bears some semblance of truth.
Ryan’s
highpraise of (SOME OF) her ideas might motivate others to investigate and learn a little more about her.There. It’s more accurate though still irrelevant.
For what it’s worth I see little similarity between Marx and Alinsky, J.R., and wonder why you lump them together.
I didn’t, Dennis. I merely said I’d like to see your response to the question posed by Amazona. As appears to be your MO and, not surprisingly, you managed to twist yourself into an ideological pretzel in your response.
Dennis is simply not a thinking person. He is an over emotional reactionary, dishonest person. And yet he questions others morals and intentions.
He has yet to answer the question on Frank Marshall Davis, or to be the least bit objective on any issue. His very being disgusts me, and his opinion should be summarily dismissed on every level.
Dennis,
So, 7 years ago when he was 33 Ryan was still a bit enamored of that sort of thing…but he also noted that he required his staff to read Hayek and Mises. If anything, this all just reinforces Ryan as a free marketer…it is, of course, a pity that he’s not a Distributist as that is, in the end, the only rational economic policy to follow, but we take things one step at a time.
“Distributism is an economic theory that advocates the broadest allocation of ownership—ownership of property and capital—so that the greatest number of people are free to determine their own economic fate; Distributism says that the economy is made for man, not man for the economy; that subsidiarity is a principle that serves the family (the building block of society) and that makes for personal and social sanity; Distributism opposes the errors of capitalism and the errors of socialism both; it opposes both slavery to corporations and slavery to the state; it affirms the dignity of man and seeks to make man’s activity in the marketplace a virtuous thing.”
It sounds lovely, but as utopian as socialism, and could exist only within the framework of government imposition of the status quo.
Human nature is one of success or failure, acquisition or disposition. If you could wave a magic wand and create the ideal Distributist society, it would fail within a generation or two.
Some would not be successful at their farms or their businesses and would have to sell their property to someone who was. These people would then have to work for those whose natural talents and ambitions and energy made their endeavors more successful.
It is also based on the fallacy that working for someone else is a form of “slavery”.
As long as God distributes the attributes of intelligence, ambition, vision, courage and the ability to identify and solve problems unevenly, no society based on the artificial construct of “equality”can succeed.
The only way Distributism could work would be under a collectivist system, in which the upwardly mobile are restrained and the less productive are subsidized, to maintain the balance.
dennis, YOU are the one making assertions, so it is up to YOU to back them up. It’s not my job to hunt through the internet to see if I can find quotes that back up your claims, and of course if I did not find any you would just claim I was too lazy to look hard enough.
You make a huge leap when you say “…Paul Ryan just three years ago said “Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism.”
Yeah. So? People like you think capitalism is immoral, so people like you freak out about the concept “..the morality of capitalism…” Big deal.
Then you go on to say: “She was by his own definition the one thinker who most influenced his entry into politics.”
1. When and where did he say that, or is this your interpretation of something he DID say?
2. If he did say it, did he identify just WHY her writings had that effect on him? Did he say which ideas inspired him? As a lifelong ardent Catholic I think we can safely say it was not her atheism, so that is one part of her philosophy he obviously did not find compelling. Come on—you seem to claiming to be quite the expert on the Rand/Ryan interface, so fill in the gaps
Did he say he went into politics to put into practice what he learned from her writing? That her defense of selfishness made him decide this was not the path he would choose for himself so he decided to be a public servant? Did her writings make him realize the importance of civic duty? Did they make him realize that freedom is never really free but must be bought with the labor and commitment of the citizens who desire it?
What ABOUT her writings influenced him to enter politics? Did he say, or was this just part of something else he said you and glommed onto it as if it was terribly significant?
You make these broad sweeping statements as if they mean anything. Oh, I imagine they mean something to YOU, but as we have learned, your relationship with reality is unique.
I gave many legitimate examples of how one can admire or be inspired to action by something that falls short of absolute acceptance and you just ignored me. You are absolute in your determination that Paul Ryan read the writing of Ayn Rand and became a convert to her philosophy and every aspect of her way of thinking, a conversion which defines what and who he is to this day.
Of course you are also absolute in your belief that the United States of America should be governed by a translation of the Old Testament in which the ancient and extinct nation of Israel was told its responsibilities to its citizens, and not by our Constitution.
Of great and deep significance is the sinister fact that her name is an anagram for AND RYAN. Uh-oh. I wonder if you play the audio book of “Atlas Shrugged”backwards you would hear the voice of the devil describing Ryan’s economic scheme to destroy the nation.
Look into that and get back to us, OK?
The communist Frank Marshall Davis is mentioned 22 times in Obama’s book “Dreasm of my Father” therefore – Obama is obviously a communist.
Like father; like son.
both bastads?
both kenyans
both communists
both muslims
Frank Marshall Davis (Obama’s father) wasn’t Kenyan or Muslim.
He was an atheist, correct.
Bite Me
‘THEY GONNA PUT Y’ALL BACK IN CHAINS’
THEY GONNA?
Y’ALL?
BACK in CHAINS?
Hmmmmm code words to someone?
Y’ALL = maybe he meant the same people who had dogs sicked on THEM
or the one’s who were sprayed with high pressure fire hoses, maybe the ones who had to eat in the corner? back of the bus? certain schools?
THEY = democRATS.
yup code words all right, to the plantation dwellers from their owners with whips.
count
BINGO !!
🙂
it is what it is, Neo, they know their time is short.
Cluster, Cluster, Cluster—-we simply MUST start calling that book by its correct title because only then can we understand its relevance to what is going on today.
The book is called Dreams FROM My Father—that is, it is not about the dreams OF his father, but his own dreams, which he got FROM his father.
Once we understand this, we just look at the dreams OF his father and we see anti-American socialism.
Obama has told us what we need to know about him, but we need to pay more attention
Hey Bardolf, see intrades barky numbers lately? Not doing so good is he? 56.6 as of today, 11 weeks before the election. Bet ya another 6 pack he is under 45.0 by November 2. As a bonus I’ll send ya a 6 pack of my own home brew. Win or lose.
🙂
OT unless we do a temporary thread change to “DEMOCRATS JUST CAN’T BE SMART”
http://www.inquisitr.com/301725/joe-bidens-theyre-gonna-put-yall-back-in-chains-comment-drawing-backlash-video/#g07YS6Qd3UOkzHgx.99
Biden, to a crowd made up extensively of minorities: “They’ve said it. Every Republican’s voted for it. Romney wants to let the – he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules – unchain Wall Street. They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”
D’ya think we can arrange for several VP debates? The debate parties would be more fun than Super Bowl parties, and we could play a drinking game where everyone has to take a drink every time Joe says something stupid.
It would be OK—I’ve got room for all the drunk people to stay over, because sure as hell no one would be able to drive after that.
The lie: Romney never said or implied that he wanted “…to let the big banks once again write their own rules..”
Actually, TWO lies—the “once again” and the “write their own rules”.
As for the stupid, well, it WAS Joe Biden speaking—need we say more?
Wall Street=Big Banks=Slavery???????
Amazona,
Did you happen to catch Rudy’s reaction to Biden’s comments? Too funny.
The VP was correct. Romney is running the campaign that McCain wouldn’t. McCain wanted to win with policy and populism. Unfortunately the conservative base only understands dogma and dog whistles. Romney will fail using this method.
GMB said, “Neo, of course prosperity is shared. We prosper and they will share it. You don’t actually think people like Thomas, dennis, bomber mitchie, and watson will ever produce anything other than dependency do you?”
Too funny. I haven’t even participated in this discussion and yet you invoke me. GMB, as I have stated over and over, people like NeoClown have a dependency on people like me. That’s a fact no matter how you want to spin it.
You are a shining star of the unthinking collectivist universe. When those deductions for medicare and social security quit being mandatory then and only then you might have an argument.
Seriously though how is Neo dependent on you? Did you loan him your link card and he forgot to give it back?
No, GMB, the wattle is just proof of nature’s need for balance.
If there are thinking, rational people, then on the other side there have to be watsons.
Amazona,
You are correct in the book title, I stand duly corrected. I think another good point is that Obama wrote his first autobiography when he was just 30 years old. That’s taking narcissism to a new level.
Watson,
You are once again repeating a claim that you were corrected on yesterday. Do you have a learning disability?
watstooge
people like Neoco1 have a dependency on people like me.
we do ….pure entertainment dependency…..
people like NeoClown have a dependency on people like me. That’s a fact no matter how you want to spin it.
Watson, if you were to die, we might weep and wail and rend our clothes (no, not really), but our financial well-being would not be affected. Oh, and you need to study up on just exactly what a “fact” is. You seem to be suffering from the misunderstanding that a “fact” is something that, if you repeat it often enough, it takes on a new meaning. There ARE people who have “a dependency” on people like you — they largely vote Democrat and pay no federal income tax. Neo and I don’t fall in that group, and “no matter how you want to spin it”, there’s no way you can wish us in that group.
Watty, the only thing we depend upon you for is to remind us how the average mindless drone thinks. What is the average dumbed down Democrati voter like?
You can’t tell the difference between a wealth distribution payment (welfare) and a benefit received through payroll tax deduction (Social Security). You can’t tell the difference between voluntary and forced participation.
In short, we depend upon you to make us laugh until we are blue in the face.
Pathetic, yet predictable.
NEW BLACK PANTHERS TO RNC: OUR ‘FEET WILL BE ON YOUR MOTHERF***ING NECKS’
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/08/14/NBP-Threaten-Cracker-Republican-Tampa-Convention-Wont-Be-Tolerated-Our-Feet-Will-Be-On-Your-Necks
All I can say is bring it. As a tea party supporter I am more than prepared to defend myself against stupid, divisive, hateful people, and sadly the new black panther party is all of that and more.
Will it be safe to vote in November?
“Jeremiah August 14, 2012 at 9:45 pm #
Will it be safe to vote in November?”
Of course it will.
Jerimiah,
How are you doing?
Jeremiah,
Sorry hit the wrong key.
I’m doing okay, Casper, except for a little stress. Got a lot to get done before the snow comes and gets too deep. People wantin’ me to do their projects, while I try to do my own at the same time. It’ll all work out, though…if I can just get the weather.
Yes.
cluster
that little skinny POS couldnt put his dirty feet on my grandsons neck let alone anyone I know……..
hey she bop bippity bop BRING it to Florida, we are cringing in our houses with our bibles in fear of you Morons…..LOL
I agree. There is no place for violence in any political discussion.
“Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago,” Romney said while campaigning in Ohio.
Maybe Mitt gets it. I certainly can not imagine McCain ever saying anything like this.
Safe to vote in November? Great question. If it is unsafe to vote, I would say our Republic is lost. No loyalty is owed to a government that would allow such conditions to exist.
If it is unsafe to vote, I would say our Republic is lost. No loyalty is owed to a government that would allow such conditions to exist.
100% on the money, GMB. I know I wouldn’t want to go vote and some black panthers beating on me with a billy-club/nightstick or some such.
Makes me wonder, with them threatening us like they are.
I actually hope that some of the new black panthers are at my voting precinct. I will definitely get in their face.