If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Nation)   Johnson is randiest senator   (thenation.com) divider line 78
    More: Obvious, William F. Buckley, Stockholm Syndrome, Dagny Taggart, Atlas Shrugged, Kentucky Senators, Whittaker Chambers, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  
•       •       •

2769 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jan 2013 at 3:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-31 02:17:18 PM
And, in keeping with the great Republican tradition of cognitive dissonance, I'm sure he totally loves Jesus and is a Super Christian.
 
2013-01-31 02:24:38 PM
"Johnson is rapiest senator"

FTFY
 
2013-01-31 02:25:56 PM
And he married into money. What a surprise.
 
2013-01-31 02:34:22 PM
Faith is the wors curse of mankind, as the exact antithesis and enemy of thought. -Ayn Rand

So which is Johnson, a follower of Rand or a Lutheran, thoughtless follower of Jesus.
Pick one.
Randians reject the latter. Period.
 
2013-01-31 02:38:56 PM
fuckjackharry.files.wordpress.com

What an extremely randy individual may look like
 
2013-01-31 02:39:51 PM
"we're all suffering collectively from the Stockholm Syndrome. That's where people who have been kidnapped are grateful to their captors when they just show them a little bit of mercy. And collectively, we just don't understand the freedoms we're really losing."

Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to Senator Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
 
2013-01-31 02:44:14 PM
The most childlike and hypocritical people believe that Rand's world represents reality. Some of them call themselves "Libertarians" others -the least objective and most fanciful "Objectivists". All of their thoughts combined aren't worth a steam pile of dung.
 
2013-01-31 02:53:30 PM
Look: I'm glad that you like to read and all, but...Ayn Rand is a 'phase' author. Like 'Catcher in the Rye', 'Starship Troopers', 'On the Road', and 'Fight Club', her books are something you grow into and out of all, all in your middle teens. Yes, these works are thought-provoking, but they're irresponsible too; that's precisely why they *should* appeal to teens and *shouldn't* appeal to adults.

I'm sorry, but any adult who takes her work seriously should be automatically disqualified for holding public office.

It's like that Clemenceau quote that is always misattributed to Churchill : 'N'être pas socialiste à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur ; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête. (Not to be a socialist (radical) at twenty is proof of a missing heart; to be one at thirty is proof of a missing head.)

In short: if you DON'T like Rand at some point, you were likely a passionless twit of a teenager. However, if you don't stop by your early twenties or so, you're an idiot.

QED: this guy...is an idiot.
 
2013-01-31 03:00:39 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: The most childlike and hypocritical people believe that Rand's world represents reality. Some of them call themselves "Libertarians" others -the least objective and most fanciful "Objectivists". All of their thoughts combined aren't worth a steam pile of dung.


It is interesting to see these people rise to power and openly embrace Ayn Rand.
I can remember reading Atlas Shrugged, 20-30 years ago. I can remember enjoying it somewhat. I wasnt forced to read it for a class, which helped. I remember skimming and skipping the speeches, I got it. I got it in the first sentence, when you drone on and on like that.

The book was interesting as a period piece. Pointing out what things were like back before TV and the internet. People got their information from the radio, papers and local speeches. Plus people spoke in full  sentences, which was nice.

But it had that feel a naivete. That the world is much more complex now and going back to the old way of being self supportive is close to impossible these days without giving up, well, most if not everything that we take for granted. All electronics. All modern medicine and therapies. 
Subsistence farming/hunting is HARD. Doing it without the support of a tribe or large group is basically impossible.

It is a trivial thought experiment to prove this.
Make a list of everything that you think that you would need to survive on your own.
Split the list into things which you could replace on your own and those which once they broke or were gone, that you could not replace. Replaceable, irreplaceable.

Rank order the irreplaceable items. How many of them would have to break, wear-out, be exhausted before you quit surviving on your own.

But this is critical thinking. Most of the Randians these days are completely unable to do that.
 
2013-01-31 03:03:20 PM
It's really not that good a book.
 
2013-01-31 03:11:57 PM

whistleridge: 'Starship Troopers'


I find Starship Troopers (ST) to still be thought provoking. The question of who should get "the vote" is quite interesting to continue thinking about.

Who should vote:
Felons after they are released having served their time?
Felons serving their time?
Felons on parole?
Peoplecommitted to a mental institute?
Very low IQ people? Lower than 50? Lower than 75?
Very uneducated people? Unable to add, read or write?
What about brain-damaged? To what level?
Very old people who are losing their faculties?

What about special classes?
Everyone gets 1 vote.
People paying less than 20k in taxes (including sales, local, state, federal) get 2 votes.
People paying 20k-100k get 3 votes.
People paying more than 100k get 4 votes.

so yah, I use ST as a starting point to thinking about the consequences and unintended consequences of different voting schemes. The consequences of a tax paying weighted system can be interesting.
The group paying the most into the social tax fund would have the most impact on who gets elected.
The group paying the least would still get some say, but not enough to pull things to one extreme or another.
The group paying the most per person would get a bigger say, but they are such a small number of people that they would not be an issue.
The people avoiding paying taxes would have less say than if they had paid their fair share.

/as I said, thinking can be fun. yes I know all about the down sides, but the thinking alone can be useful.
 
2013-01-31 03:15:47 PM
Rand is like porn for misguided conservatives.  It's gratifying to beat off to.  But what goes on the story is completely impractical in real life.  And it rarely ends well when you try to make the story happen in real life.
 
2013-01-31 03:16:55 PM

namatad: whistleridge: 'Starship Troopers'

I find Starship Troopers (ST) to still be thought provoking. The question of who should get "the vote" is quite interesting to continue thinking about.

Who should vote:
Felons after they are released having served their time?
Felons serving their time?
Felons on parole?
Peoplecommitted to a mental institute?
Very low IQ people? Lower than 50? Lower than 75?
Very uneducated people? Unable to add, read or write?
What about brain-damaged? To what level?
Very old people who are losing their faculties?

What about special classes?
Everyone gets 1 vote.
People paying less than 20k in taxes (including sales, local, state, federal) get 2 votes.
People paying 20k-100k get 3 votes.
People paying more than 100k get 4 votes.

so yah, I use ST as a starting point to thinking about the consequences and unintended consequences of different voting schemes. The consequences of a tax paying weighted system can be interesting.
The group paying the most into the social tax fund would have the most impact on who gets elected.
The group paying the least would still get some say, but not enough to pull things to one extreme or another.
The group paying the most per person would get a bigger say, but they are such a small number of people that they would not be an issue.
The people avoiding paying taxes would have less say than if they had paid their fair share.

/as I said, thinking can be fun. yes I know all about the down sides, but the thinking alone can be useful.


Like I said, Heinlein is interesting, but ultimately socially irresponsible. Wars start for reasons other than population pressure. And healthy societies have  low soldier:civilian ratios, not high. 'One soldier, one vote' leads to the Crisis of the Third Century: soldiers backing whichever general pays them the most, little to no protections under law, and rule of might. 

Starship Troopersmakes you think. And that's a good thing. Unless you then try to put its ideas into practice wholesale. And then you're an idiot.

Ditto in this situation.
 
2013-01-31 03:41:08 PM

namatad: I find Starship Troopers (ST) to still be thought provoking. The question of who should get "the vote" is quite interesting to continue thinking about.

Who should vote:
Felons after they are released having served their time?
Felons serving their time?
Felons on parole?
Peoplecommitted to a mental institute?
Very low IQ people? Lower than 50? Lower than 75?
Very uneducated people? Unable to add, read or write?
What about brain-damaged? To what level?
Very old people who are losing their faculties?



Hell, we've got Congressmen that fit into one or more of most of those categories, let alone just voters.
 
2013-01-31 03:54:04 PM
i1.ytimg.com "
 
2013-01-31 03:55:03 PM
yeah I'm the randiest here, where all the Farkettes?
 
2013-01-31 03:55:26 PM
The Tea Party favorite who came into the limelight last week, first with his convoluted questioning of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the tragic killings of Americans at Benghazi in Libya, and then withhis acknowledgement after a dressing down from secretary of state nominee John Kerry that he had not actually been a member of the committee when some of the basic briefings on Benghazi were presented. is painfully ignorant, a trait the Tea Party values in their leaders.
 
2013-01-31 03:56:43 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
/oblig
 
2013-01-31 03:58:16 PM
What randy Johnson may look like:

www.nndb.com
 
2013-01-31 03:58:30 PM

namatad: Who should vote:
Felons after they are released having served their time?
Felons serving their time?
Felons on parole?
Peoplecommitted to a mental institute?
Very low IQ people? Lower than 50? Lower than 75?
Very uneducated people? Unable to add, read or write?
What about brain-damaged? To what level?
Very old people who are losing their faculties?


Yes to all. 1 vote per person, nothing more, nothing less. People who do shiat like take old people's votes in addition to their own via guile or other means can have their next vote from their prison cell.
Voting from prisons may be tricky, but it would be interesting in the sense that politicians couldn't do things like make everything illegal to fill prisons as easily as before.
 
2013-01-31 03:59:07 PM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-31 04:04:36 PM
House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, the party's 2012 vice-presidential nominee, peppers his remarks with Randian references and once admitted, "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."

Look, I know that Ryan isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but wouldn't "public service" be the very antithesis of Randian Philosophy?
 
2013-01-31 04:04:36 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: "we're all suffering collectively from the Stockholm Syndrome. That's where people who have been kidnapped are grateful to their captors when they just show them a little bit of mercy. And collectively, we just don't understand the freedoms we're really losing."

Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to Senator Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.


Yeah.  He's real salt of the earth.  The common clay.
 
2013-01-31 04:07:28 PM
i disagreed with someone in a thread about a week ago.  I claimed that Rand Paul was the dumbest Senator we had.  He backed RJ.  I may have to concede.
 
2013-01-31 04:08:22 PM
You know what is really sad about these Republican Randians? They don't even realize that they are the looters or in their prevalence takers. That no politician is ever anything but a taker or looter, for politicians don't produce anything.
 
2013-01-31 04:08:36 PM
Ob:
whatcommarketing.com

Lionel Mandrake: And, in keeping with the great Republican tradition of cognitive dissonance, I'm sure he totally loves Jesus and is a Super Christian.


He's a Lutheran who's reportedly of the "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion" variety.

Because People in power are Stupid: The most childlike and hypocritical people believe that Rand's world represents reality. Some of them call themselves "Libertarians" others -the least objective and most fanciful "Objectivists". All of their thoughts combined aren't worth a steam pile of dung.


Actually... no. The ones calling themselves Libertarians/Objectivists may be childlike, but they're not the worst hypocrites -- the "high Social Dominance Orientation" by itself just makes them a bit sociopathically indifferent to the plight of their fellow humans, since they regard them as at best sometimes useful scum. The least objective, most fanciful and hypocritical are the ones who are also high-RWAs. Those tend to self-identify more often as "Hard-working Patriotic Christian Conservatives". Libertarians seem more often low-RWA. (Some Objectivists seem high-RWA types who focus to a different authority; the full-blown Objectivist flavor seem rarer and less hypocritical than Dominionist Christians, from what I can tell.)

Cue plug for Dr. Bob Altemeyer....

namatad: The consequences of a tax paying weighted system can be interesting.


It helps if you bear in mind that an election functions as a very cheap and simple simulation of finding the outcome of a war -- and if enough people don't find the outcome satisfactory and convincing, they may tend to try a non-simulated run of such social experiment.

whistleridge: And healthy societies have low soldier:civilian ratios, not high.


The ratio of current-and-former-soldier to lifetime-civilian can safely be rather higher.
 
2013-01-31 04:11:11 PM
Alastair Reynolds, I think, has a government in one of his stories where your vote is weighted by your past votes for successful or unsuccessful initiatives.  A really good voter might have a weight of 2.5.  Super-dooper voters might have a weight of 4 or more and would be sought after as consultants or targeted by advocates.
 
2013-01-31 04:14:33 PM

Cyberluddite: What randy Johnson may look like:

[www.nndb.com image 225x326]


Haaaaaaaaaah.
 
2013-01-31 04:15:06 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, the party's 2012 vice-presidential nominee, peppers his remarks with Randian references and once admitted, "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."

Look, I know that Ryan isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but wouldn't "public service" be the very antithesis of Randian Philosophy?


Yeah, well, intellectual consistency is not exactly a hallmark for these clowns. Another fun example is "The Citadel"  the planned "libertarian" commune. See also: Glenn Beck's planned libertarian city.
 
2013-01-31 04:15:15 PM

whistleridge: namatad: whistleridge: 'Starship Troopers'

I find Starship Troopers (ST) to still be thought provoking. The question of who should get "the vote" is quite interesting to continue thinking about.

Who should vote:
Felons after they are released having served their time?
Felons serving their time?
Felons on parole?
Peoplecommitted to a mental institute?
Very low IQ people? Lower than 50? Lower than 75?
Very uneducated people? Unable to add, read or write?
What about brain-damaged? To what level?
Very old people who are losing their faculties?

What about special classes?
Everyone gets 1 vote.
People paying less than 20k in taxes (including sales, local, state, federal) get 2 votes.
People paying 20k-100k get 3 votes.
People paying more than 100k get 4 votes.

so yah, I use ST as a starting point to thinking about the consequences and unintended consequences of different voting schemes. The consequences of a tax paying weighted system can be interesting.
The group paying the most into the social tax fund would have the most impact on who gets elected.
The group paying the least would still get some say, but not enough to pull things to one extreme or another.
The group paying the most per person would get a bigger say, but they are such a small number of people that they would not be an issue.
The people avoiding paying taxes would have less say than if they had paid their fair share.

/as I said, thinking can be fun. yes I know all about the down sides, but the thinking alone can be useful.

Like I said, Heinlein is interesting, but ultimately socially irresponsible. Wars start for reasons other than population pressure. And healthy societies have  low soldier:civilian ratios, not high. 'One soldier, one vote' leads to the Crisis of the Third Century: soldiers backing whichever general pays them the most, little to no protections under law, and rule of might.

Starship Troopersmakes you think. And that's a good thing. Unless you then try to put its ideas into practi ...


Heinlein repeatedly pointed out that the (rather unclear) text gave all government service jobs "veterans" the vote.  You just couldn't leave if your MOS came up "cannon fodder" instead of "beer taster".

/Atlas Shrugged may be the first book I intentionally gave up on (about 700 pages in).
//I've heard claims of a mult-page infamous "speech".  My question is: "how do you tell"?
///Big RAH fan when young.  Fortunately being a SPL (Il Duce of a boy scout troop) cured me of libertarianism.
 
2013-01-31 04:15:45 PM

Lionel Mandrake: And, in keeping with the great Republican tradition of cognitive dissonance, I'm sure he totally loves Jesus and is a Super Christian.


yeah, he does kinda look like he has a case of the sekret gheys
 
2013-01-31 04:19:42 PM

Lionel Mandrake: And, in keeping with the great Republican tradition of cognitive dissonance, I'm sure he totally loves Jesus and is a Super Christian.


and I'm sure we can count on him to strike down any new abortion restrictions since Ms. Rand called abortion "a moral Right"   correct?
 
2013-01-31 04:23:27 PM

whistleridge: Look: I'm glad that you like to read and all, but...Ayn Rand is a 'phase' author. Like 'Catcher in the Rye', 'Starship Troopers', 'On the Road', and 'Fight Club', her books are something you grow into and out of all, all in your middle teens. Yes, these works are thought-provoking, but they're irresponsible too; that's precisely why they *should* appeal to teens and *shouldn't* appeal to adults.

I'm sorry, but any adult who takes her work seriously should be automatically disqualified for holding public office.

It's like that Clemenceau quote that is always misattributed to Churchill : 'N'être pas socialiste à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur ; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête. (Not to be a socialist (radical) at twenty is proof of a missing heart; to be one at thirty is proof of a missing head.)

In short: if you DON'T like Rand at some point, you were likely a passionless twit of a teenager. However, if you don't stop by your early twenties or so, you're an idiot.

QED: this guy...is an idiot.


I remember reading The Fountainhead my freshman year in college.  I can't even remember why, now that I think about it; I'd never heard of Rand or her politics.

I thought it was cool that Galt designed this awesome building that was functionally and architecturally innovative, and that he was willing to stand up and fight for it.
Then things got all rapey and explody, and I said to myself, "WTF am I reading?  This is garbage."

And, that was the last of Rand for me.
 
2013-01-31 04:25:32 PM

yet_another_wumpus: Heinlein repeatedly pointed out that the (rather unclear) text gave all government service jobs "veterans" the vote. You just couldn't leave if your MOS came up "cannon fodder" instead of "beer taster".


Actually you could.  There was ~a week cooling of period after sorting IIRC.
 
2013-01-31 04:30:36 PM

namatad: But it had that feel a naivete. That the world is much more complex now and going back to the old way of being self supportive is close to impossible these days without giving up, well, most if not everything that we take for granted. All electronics. All modern medicine and therapies.


Did you read a different book than me?  Shrugged was not a call for the rich to go on strike.  It is that a person has power to make great changes and are due their just rewards from their work and then hamfistedly showed what may happen when people of intelect and ambition throw in the towel.
 
2013-01-31 04:31:55 PM
FTA
It may also be why Paul Krugman reminds us There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

Great way to look at it.
 
2013-01-31 04:34:19 PM
images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com
                     MISS ME YET?
 
2013-01-31 04:38:40 PM
In that he biatches about public services and entitlements but uses them himself?

/didn't read the article
 
2013-01-31 04:47:22 PM
i1091.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-31 04:51:17 PM

Fart_Machine: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 200x200]


A. No one can refuse compulsory education. If a child doesn't go to school, his parents can be imprisoned ... not just in 1920s communist Russia, but right now in modern America.

B. Yes, Rand did accept Medicare to pay for her medical care ... when she was in her 70s, after paying a lifetime of taxes, and - despite formally viewing limited state assistance as getting something back - had to be talked into it by others.

Attempting to paint Rand as a hypocrite for these is the equivalent of "stop hitting yourself" bullying.
 
2013-01-31 04:54:28 PM

Lernaeus: A. No one can refuse compulsory education. If a child doesn't go to school, his parents can be imprisoned ... not just in 1920s communist Russia, but right now in modern America.


Wut?
i221.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-31 04:58:21 PM
Isn't he from Rockridge?
 
2013-01-31 05:04:39 PM
i47.photobucket.com


Also,

i47.photobucket.com

/Oblig
 
2013-01-31 05:04:57 PM
i've noticed that a lot of my conservative friends get REALLY REALLY mad at me when I point out that they cannot be an Ayn Rand Objectivist and a pro-life christian at the same time.  they are diametrically opposed philosophies.
 
2013-01-31 05:15:00 PM

Lernaeus: Fart_Machine: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 200x200]

A. No one can refuse compulsory education. If a child doesn't go to school, his parents can be imprisoned ... not just in 1920s communist Russia, but right now in modern America.

B. Yes, Rand did accept Medicare to pay for her medical care ... when she was in her 70s, after paying a lifetime of taxes, and - despite formally viewing limited state assistance as getting something back - had to be talked into it by others.

Attempting to paint Rand as a hypocrite for these is the equivalent of "stop hitting yourself" bullying.


Medicare, Social Security, etc, are not pension plans, but welfare programs. You don't pay into an account or pool to draw from later; you're paying the current recipients of the welfare, and you will receive payments from the taxpayers when you are eligible for the welfare.

So, yes, Rand is still a hypocrite for taking Medicare.

/I do find your first point valid, though.
 
2013-01-31 05:16:22 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Look, I know that Ryan isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but wouldn't "public service" be the very antithesis of Randian Philosophy?


Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist.

She was clear about the role and proper functions of government, and held the basic structure of ours (as founded) to be virtuous. She never said government was a "necessary evil," but instead that it is a necessary good, insofar as its sole means (a monopoly on the use of force) is limited to ensuring freedom and establishing justice. In a proper, free society those that would join the military, or serve as judges, or even seek elected office would all be doing so out of a selfish interest in maintaining freedom, and hence be considered moral by Rand.

Despite whatever admiration they might have for Rand, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and Paul Ryan are far & away nowhere close to who she might have called moral politicians. While they may pay lip service to free speech or free markets, none of them represents a position fundamentally opposed to their party's statism.

I imagine if she was alive now, she'd look at these men and think "if this is the best we've got, America is doomed".
 
2013-01-31 05:17:53 PM
Nina_Hartley's_Ass
And he married into money. What a surprise.

And then campaigned on being a 'businessman'.


Slaves2Darkness
You know what is really sad about these Republican Randians? They don't even realize that they are the looters or in their prevalence takers. That no politician is ever anything but a taker or looter, for politicians don't produce anything.

It's not that they don't realize it. It's that they don't care.

/please make the formatting buttons go away
 
2013-01-31 05:21:40 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Lernaeus: A. No one can refuse compulsory education. If a child doesn't go to school, his parents can be imprisoned ... not just in 1920s communist Russia, but right now in modern America.

Wut?
[i221.photobucket.com image 403x268]


Home schooling is compulsory if you don't send your kids to a public or private school. You have to go through a ton of paperwork, and submit reports to the state.

You wouldn't argue that a person with an ankle monitor was "free" just because he wasn't in a jail, right?
 
2013-01-31 05:22:44 PM

RanDomino: . /please make the formatting buttons go away


Click "Use HTML buttons" it will bring back what it used to be.
 
2013-01-31 05:24:33 PM
LoneWolf343
/I do find your first point valid, though.

Her family fled to White-controlled Crimea after the 1917 Bolshevik coup. She graduated there. So much for compulsory soviet schooling.

She did, however, avail herself of the university, since they were opened to women under the Communists.

When she came to America, "she lived for a few months with relatives in Chicago, one of whom owned a movie theater and allowed her to watch dozens of films for free." Bootstrappy!
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report