Tolkien and Ayn Rand
Tilion
interesting topic.) Does anyone know why both Ayn Rand and Tolkien seem
to be popular among the same people? (For example, the rock band Rush
are big Rand-roids and have also written songs about LOTR.) I dislike
everything about Ayn Rand: her books and her philosophy. I have been
shocked to learn that I am apparently in the minority among Tolkien fans
in my opinion of Ayn Rand. To me, Tolkien's books are about
selflessness, whereas Ayn Rand's books characterize selfishness as a
virtue. Tolkien's books are about the dangers and temptations of power
(look at how Gandalf rejects taking up the One Ring or how Frodo
eventually fails in his quest because of his desire for the Ring.), and
Rand's books are about ways to get and maintain power. Two completely
contrasting philosophies, if you ask me. I simply don't see how someone
can love both Tolkien and Ayn Rand, at least philosophically.
jup...@highfiber.com
I, for one, agree with you. I can't stand Ayn Rand, either. I dislike her
boring (to me) writing style, I dislike her philosophy, I dislike her
attitude. I also lay the blame for a failed relationship at her feet.
Everything was going fine until my ex (this was quite a few years ago)
started reading Ayn Rand, and started 'losing respect' for me when I did
things for her or other people without expecting anything in return. So... I
got dumped for being nice... ooooooookay. so, I have a personal grudge :).
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
!_daßurrš
-|> interesting topic.) Does anyone know why both Ayn Rand and Tolkien seem
-|> to be popular among the same people? (For example, the rock band Rush
-|> are big Rand-roids and have also written songs about LOTR.) I dislike
-|> everything about Ayn Rand: her books and her philosophy. I have been
-|> shocked to learn that I am apparently in the minority among Tolkien fans
-|> in my opinion of Ayn Rand. To me, Tolkien's books are about
-|> selflessness, whereas Ayn Rand's books characterize selfishness as a
-|> virtue. Tolkien's books are about the dangers and temptations of power
-|> (look at how Gandalf rejects taking up the One Ring or how Frodo
-|> eventually fails in his quest because of his desire for the Ring.), and
-|> Rand's books are about ways to get and maintain power. Two completely
-|> contrasting philosophies, if you ask me. I simply don't see how someone
-|> can love both Tolkien and Ayn Rand, at least philosophically.
-|>
What Ayn Rand books have you read? The ones I have(most notably Atlas Shrugged)
are about individual suppression by extensive government***hmmm reminds me of
Sharkey***
I dont see Tolkiens heros as being "selfless", I see them as self-reliant
individuals who are willing to be responsible for there actions rather than some
do gooding hollywood liberals anti-heros to capitalism. The "dangers and
temptations of power" are exactly what are plaquing government in the U.S.
today. People like Clinton will behave exactly as they do as long as they think
they wont be punished. I just heard a politician say " The public only THINKS
it has the right to know what happens in the private lives of our leaders" as if
to say the little people should leave the ''Great leaders" to the affairs[sic]
of the world. This reminds me a lot of the way Saruman was thinking toward the
end of his power. The arrogance of these ASSHOLES is unbelievable.
If youve ever worked for anything in your life, and had it taken away by the
state "for the good of everyone" then you wont have trouble understanding Rands
philosophy. You are witness to one of the best economies in the world in
Atlanta, yet I am amazed at how many immigrants I run into here that complain
about a lack of social service(programs) like Gov. sponsored health care,
secondary education(UKers) and the like. They dont have a clue that what they
are complaining about is THE reason they had to come here to find work.
Either way, both Tolkien and Rand go way beyond such simple comparison as
selfless/selfish and such oversimplification means almost nothing. Both are
cool tho....
***** !_daßur...@mindspring.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; ş *****
Tilion
I read "Anthem" many years ago in high school. I started reading "Atlas
Shrugged" a few years ago, but became disgusted with it after about half
way through. I have a friend who is a Rand-ian and keeps me
well-informed on Ayn Rand's writings, though.
>I just heard a politician say " The public only THINKS
>it has the right to know what happens in the private lives of our
leaders" as if
>to say the little people should leave the ''Great leaders" to the
affairs[sic]
>of the world.
As far as BC's private life is concerned, I DON'T think that is relevant
to the job he does as President. People in Europe laugh at Americans for
their ridiculous puritanical notions about sex. In Europe, women can
walk topless on a beach and nobody cares. Francois Mitterand can have a
mistress for 20 years and nobody cares. (European civilization hasn't
exactly fallen apart because of things like that, either.). Do that in
the U.S., and the morality police come out and cart you off to jail.
BTW, if Clinton DID lie about Monica Lewinsky, it's only because he knew
full well that everything he had worked his whole life for would be
taken away over one minor faux pas.
<This reminds me a lot of the way Saruman was thinking toward the
<end of his power.
Bill Clinton reminds you of Saruman? Saruman had a great deal of power,
unlike BC. The REAL power in THIS country lies with corporations, not
politicians. R.J. Reynolds, Barnes & Noble and Microsoft remind me a lot
more of Sauron or Saruman than Bill Clinton does. Corporations will
consume every natural resource for the sake of profit. Who does that
sound like to you? Sauron maybe, or Saruman? Read the Chapter in LOTR on
the Scouring of the Shire, and see if Saruman really sounds like a
liberal environmentalist to you.
<You are witness to one of the best economies in the world in
<Atlanta,....
Living in Atlanta, I see exactly what you mean about what capitalism can
do for society. Before the Reagan and Clinton booms, we actually had
trees in this city (2/3 of the trees here have been cut down in the past
20 years. Wouldn't Tolkien be proud of what capitalism has done for the
forests of this city?), you could actually drive around town without
having to sit for hours in traffic, the Chattahoochee River wasn't a
cesspool filled with fecal matter and sludge from poorly planned
residential developments, and yes, you could breathe the air. In fact,
because of the '96 Olympics, the whole world has seen what capitalism
has done for Atlanta (and what an embarassment that event was). All we
had to show our visitors was a "park" made of bricks (Centennial Olympic
Park) and a massive highway system.
!_daßurrš
better....
!_daßurrš
-|> >What Ayn Rand books have you read?
-|>
-|> I read "Anthem" many years ago in high school. I started reading "Atlas
-|> Shrugged" a few years ago, but became disgusted with it after about half
-|> way through. I have a friend who is a Rand-ian and keeps me
-|> well-informed on Ayn Rand's writings, though.
-|>
-|> >I just heard a politician say " The public only THINKS
-|> >it has the right to know what happens in the private lives of our
-|> >leaders" as if>to say the little people should leave the ''Great leaders" to the
-|> >affairs[sic] of the world.
-|>
-|> As far as BC's private life is concerned, I DON'T think that is relevant
-|> to the job he does as President. People in Europe laugh at Americans for
-|> their ridiculous puritanical notions about sex. In Europe, women can
-|> walk topless on a beach and nobody cares. Francois Mitterand can have a
-|> mistress for 20 years and nobody cares. (European civilization hasn't
-|> exactly fallen apart because of things like that, either.). Do that in
-|> the U.S., and the morality police come out and cart you off to jail.
-|> BTW, if Clinton DID lie about Monica Lewinsky, it's only because he knew
-|> full well that everything he had worked his whole life for would be
-|> taken away over one minor faux pas.
If you like European government, go there by all means. If someone is elected
to a public office, in fact the highest public office, he has a responsibility
not to embarass the country by acting like a perverted idiot. Maybe you expect
nothing from political leaders(what your getting in this case) but many of us
expect better than average from ''hi ranking officials''. I didnt vote for that
piece of shit, like the dupes who believe his cock and bull crap, but I
certainly have a say in what happens. Clinton does nothing to ''run the
country'' anyway except announce bs agendas and programs that amount to nothing
but government spending to enlist more voters.
-|> <This reminds me a lot of the way Saruman was thinking toward the
-|> <end of his power.
-|>
-|> Bill Clinton reminds you of Saruman? Saruman had a great deal of power,
-|> unlike BC. The REAL power in THIS country lies with corporations, not
-|> politicians. R.J. Reynolds, Barnes & Noble and Microsoft remind me a lot
-|> more of Sauron or Saruman than Bill Clinton does. Corporations will
-|> consume every natural resource for the sake of profit. Who does that
-|> sound like to you? Sauron maybe, or Saruman? Read the Chapter in LOTR on
-|> the Scouring of the Shire, and see if Saruman really sounds like a
-|> liberal environmentalist to you.
-|>
Yes Clinton reminds me of Saruman, the way he can stand there and lie with such
a strait face, and idiots like you eat his shit up and lick your fingers for
more. Those 'mean spirited' corporations your so fond of bashing, provide work
and a living for most of your fellow americans, but your oblivious to that. You
would rather have the government take care of everyone so you can have a nice
warm fuzzy about life, and punish those mean old corporations for being so
greedy >: ( Whahahaha thrice moron, where do you think the government
gets its money? Your probably stupid enough to think they can just print money
endlessly and hand it out,, right?
-|> <You are witness to one of the best economies in the world in
-|> <Atlanta,....
-|>
-|> Living in Atlanta, I see exactly what you mean about what capitalism can
-|> do for society. Before the Reagan and Clinton booms, we actually had
-|> trees in this city (2/3 of the trees here have been cut down in the past
-|> 20 years. Wouldn't Tolkien be proud of what capitalism has done for the
-|> forests of this city?), you could actually drive around town without
-|> having to sit for hours in traffic, the Chattahoochee River wasn't a
-|> cesspool filled with fecal matter and sludge from poorly planned
-|> residential developments, and yes, you could breathe the air. In fact,
-|> because of the '96 Olympics, the whole world has seen what capitalism
-|> has done for Atlanta (and what an embarassment that event was). All we
-|> had to show our visitors was a "park" made of bricks (Centennial Olympic
-|> Park) and a massive highway system.
Dont blame me because your ridiculous ideaologies have ruined the economy in so
many places that everyone is coming here for work. Your wonderful Atlanta city
government has managed to squander millions of tax dollars without accomplishing
anything as far as rebuilding the city infrastructure, (except for Olympic park,
and Turner Field) and if you think the roads are clogged with traffic now,
guess what it would be like without a "massive highway system". You should
really just go stick your head in the sand and quite pretending you have a clue.
Tilion
>Whahahaha thrice moron, where do you think the government
>gets its money? Your probably stupid enough to think they can just
print money
>endlessly and hand it out,, right?
>You should
>really just go stick your head in the sand and quite pretending you
have a clue.
Why is it that when conservatives like you lose an argument, you
immediately turn to insults? Nowhere in any thing I've written have I
insulted you personally. What is the point? If you think your ideology
or that of Ayn Rand is so far superior to liberalism , then present the
argument rather than simply turning to nastiness.
>If you like European government, go there by all means.
Oh, the America: Love it or Leave It Thing, huh? Well, the people here
elected Bill Clinton. Maybe it's you that America doesn't really suit.
>Clinton does nothing to ''run the
>country'' anyway except announce bs agendas and programs that amount to
nothing
>but government spending to enlist more voters.
Precisely what I said. It's the corporations that run everything.
>Yes Clinton reminds me of Saruman, the way he can stand there and lie
with such
>a strait face
And Bill Gates doesn't remind you of Saruman? Who is consuming
everything in his path, BC or BG? The ONLY real choice you now have in
an OS for your PC is Windows '98; i.e., unless you have $40K to buy a
Unix box. (I use a Mac but there's virtually no software left for it,
and BG now controls much of Apple anyway.) BTW, Newt Gingrich is an
*honest* man? Why is it *only* liberals that are liars? For 15 years,
Republican Mike Bowers *lied* to the people of this state by rigorously
enforcing Georgia's Blue Laws (sodomy and adultery) while violating
those laws by having an affair himself. Why didn't he arrest himself?
>Those 'mean spirited' corporations your so fond of bashing, provide
work
>and a living for most of your fellow americans, but your oblivious to
that.
An all those small bookstores and software and computer makers that
Barnes & Noble and BG put out of business didn't? BTW, not only do
corporations rape and destroy the environment and smaller businesses,
they also severely limit consumer choice. For example, I can go to
Barnes&Noble and find plenty of books by Stephen King and about Princess
Diana, but very little fine or obscure literature. Try finding anything
by Clark Ashton Smith or Lord Dunsany or Jack Vance at a large corporate
chain store. BTW, I don't think providing *work* to destroy the forests
of the Pacific NW or Atlanta is honorable or desirable. If corporations
can't find anything better to do than turn the U.S. into Mordor, what
good are they?
>Your wonderful Atlanta city
>government has managed to squander millions of tax dollars without
accomplishing
>anything as far as rebuilding the city infrastructure, (except for
Olympic park,
>and Turner Field)
(The City of Atlanta had very little to do with either Turner Field OR
the Olympic Park. It was the AOC.) Let's see, developers come in here
and clog up the Chattahoocheee and large numbers of corpoarate workers
move here and create massive traffic problems and yet it's the CITY
that's supposed to solve these expensive and difficult problems while
people like YOU complain about high taxes and the excesses of government
power? In your ideal Randian, laissez-fare world, why should the City of
Atlanta be responsible for anything?
>and if you think the roads are clogged with traffic now,
>guess what it would be like without a "massive highway system".
I would be able to breathe the air a little better. That's for sure.
The Arcane Chas
Tilion wrote in message <35C6AFD5...@gatech.campus.mci.net>...
>(I actually wrote this in a post above, but I thought it might make an
>
>
>
Well if it's any consolation, and I suspect that it won't be, I have never
even HEARD of Ayn Rand !!
Apparently ignorance is NOT always a bad thing !
:-}
Cheers,
Chas.
Arkady Bogdanov
> >(I actually wrote this in a post above, but I thought it might make an
> >interesting topic.) Does anyone know why both Ayn Rand and Tolkien seem
> >to be popular among the same people? (For example, the rock band Rush
> >are big Rand-roids and have also written songs about LOTR.) I dislike
> >everything about Ayn Rand: her books and her philosophy. I have been
> >shocked to learn that I am apparently in the minority among Tolkien fans
> >in my opinion of Ayn Rand. To me, Tolkien's books are about
> >selflessness, whereas Ayn Rand's books characterize selfishness as a
> >virtue. Tolkien's books are about the dangers and temptations of power
> >(look at how Gandalf rejects taking up the One Ring or how Frodo
> >eventually fails in his quest because of his desire for the Ring.), and
> >Rand's books are about ways to get and maintain power. Two completely
> >contrasting philosophies, if you ask me. I simply don't see how someone
> >can love both Tolkien and Ayn Rand, at least philosophically.
I dont think Ayn Rands books are about selfishness, they are about getting
wealth from the upper classes to give to the lower classes, in the process
of this you make society as a whole richer. A very noble concept.
Arkady Bogdanov
> Pick the communist country of your choice and move there,,, the sooner
the
> better....
There are no true Communist countrys in the world, they are all state
controlled, which is not true communism. Read Das Kapital by Marx, or check
out www.worldrevolution.org (one of many good sites) to find out how a
perfect society should run, plus some exelent links.
Aelf...@erols.com
> Does anyone know why both Ayn Rand and Tolkien seem
> to be popular among the same people?
As a libertarian, I find much of philosophical appeal in both Rand and
Tolkien, and, of course, some things to disagree with. Rand's atheism, for
instance, detracts from her work for me. However, I do think there are some
ideas and themes central to both Rand and Tolkien that might explain the
common appeal. For example, both are concerned with what Tolkien would call
Free Will; and both would, I think, define as evil or corrupt that which
seeks to rule the will of others through coercion or deceit. Consider this
fine libertarian statement from Tolkien's essay _Ósanwe-kenta_ 'Enquiry into
the Communication of Thought':
it is an _axan_ [law, commandement, esp. as proceeding from Eru]
universal that none shall directly by force or indirectly by fraud
take from another what he has a right to hold and keep as his own.
This is startlingly similar to a classic libertarian formulation of "The Law":
"no one shall initiate force or fraud". And, with a slight change of
terminology, Tolkien's statement would fit nicely in any of Rand's works.
(The _Ósanwe-kenta_ was published recently in _Vinyar Tengwar_ 39; see
http://www.erols.com/aelfwine/Tolkien/linguistics/ELF/VT/VT.html
for more information.)
|======================================================================|
| Carl F. Hostetter Aelf...@erols.com http://www.erols.com/aelfwine |
| |
| ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
| Ars longa, vita brevis. |
| The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
| "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
| such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
|======================================================================|
Mike Kew
>Yes Clinton reminds me of Saruman, the way he can stand there and lie with such
>a strait face,
<heavy *sigh*>
Welcome to politics. As the very, very old joke goes:
"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
"His lips are moving."
This discussion belongs on a flame group. Please take it there.
Thank you.
--
Mike Kew
- Don't read HoME! Speculate! -
!_daßurrš
-|> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, !_daßurrš <wx...@nattybumpo.net> wrote
-|>
[clip]
-|> This discussion belongs on a flame group. Please take it there.
-|>
-|> Thank you.
-|>
Ok, here is the line that exemplifies this best,
from Valaquenta -on Melkor
"Understanding he turned to subtlety in perverting to his own will all that he
would use, until he became a liar without shame."
Man! If that doesnt describe Clinton to a tee!!! So I will have to retract the
"reminds me of Saruman" and change that to 'reminds me of Morgoth'.
.
and,
.
.
nope, Im in the right group.
***** !_daßur...@mindspring.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; ž *****
SMGCFAM
> "His lips are moving."
I heard this about lawyers...same difference I suppose.
David Salo
Tolkien's ethics can hardly be reduced to a mathematical computation of
'benefits', in terms of personal power:
"'What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a
chance!'
'Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to
strike without need."
"'Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He
deserves death.'
'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And
some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too
eager to deal out death in judgement."
"We cannot use the Ruling Ring. That we now know too well. It belongs
to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil. Its strength,
Boromir, is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who have
already a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even deadlier
peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart. Consider Saruman. If
any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using
his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron's throne, and yet another
Dark Lord would appear. And that is another reason why the Ring should be
destroyed: as long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the
Wise."
"For he [Sauron] is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the
scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire
for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will
not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to
destroy it."
DS
Megan Westerfield
> -|> immediately turn to insults? Nowhere in any thing I've written have I
> -|> insulted you personally. What is the point? If you think your ideology
> -|> or that of Ayn Rand is so far superior to liberalism , then present the
> -|> argument rather than simply turning to nastiness.
> Dont know, whenever I lose an argument to a liberal, guess I'll
find out.
> Certainly hasnt happened here. How is it your whining conjecture is suppose to
> be proof of anything? You have no logic or factual info to back
up anything yet
> you claim winning an argument, LOL, most typical liberal,
ignore evidence
> against you and claim the 'moral high ground', the hypocrisy
is staggering!
so...[Rabbyt gets a little red in the face...] Now we've stooped
to blanket insulting each other's political persuasions.
> -|> >If you like European government, go there by all means.
> -|> Oh, the America: Love it or Leave It Thing, huh? Well, the
people here
> -|> elected Bill Clinton. Maybe it's you that America doesn't
really suit.
> What doesnt ''suit'' me is when LESS THAN 25% of elegibal voters
manage to elect
> a total asshole then claim they are a majority...
[ack, ack, ack....]
what a laugh you are. Well
> nothing is perfect, certainly not the electoral process we have,
but I can live
> with it.
> -|> >Clinton does nothing to ''run the
> -|> >country'' anyway except announce bs agendas and programs that amount to
> -|> nothing
> -|> >but government spending to enlist more voters.
> -|> Precisely what I said. It's the corporations that run
everything.
where in the world do you get this stuff?
> You really havent a clue, have you, hehe, let me make it as
simple as I can for
> you. The government takes the money (in taxes/fees) from
corporations and
> individuals, then doles that money out how they see fit.
This is one way
> they(gov.) have controll, and what career politicians love.
Corporations(rich
> ones) can 'buy' a small degree of influence from politicians,
(more gov.
> controll) who sell votes, but then the corporations also employ
half the people
> in this country, now where is all that liberal compasion for
your comrades who
> work for corporations.
[ack, ack, ack]
> -|> >Yes Clinton reminds me of Saruman, the way he can stand there and lie
> -|> with such >a strait face
> -|> And Bill Gates doesn't remind you of Saruman? Who is consuming
> -|> everything in his path, BC or BG? The ONLY real choice you now have in
> -|> an OS for your PC is Windows '98; i.e., unless you have $40K to buy a
> -|> Unix box. (I use a Mac but there's virtually no software left for it,
> -|> and BG now controls much of Apple anyway.) BTW, Newt Gingrich is an
> -|> *honest* man? Why is it *only* liberals that are liars? For 15 years,
> -|> Republican Mike Bowers *lied* to the people of this state by rigorously
> -|> enforcing Georgia's Blue Laws (sodomy and adultery) while violating
> -|> those laws by having an affair himself. Why didn't he arrest himself?
> -|>
> No, Bill Gates reminds me of someone who took advantage of a
business situation,
> made a lot of money, and became highly envied by liberals who
would love to have
> that money(tho they did nothing to earn it). Why did your Mac
cost so much, and
> why is there no software for it? Because those greedy boys at
Apple wanted the
> rights all to themselves.
now liberals are greedy?
> As far as Clinton is concerned, hes done nothing but use the
office of the
> president to hide behind and try to conceal his illegal and
immoral activity. I
> cant think of a much bigger insult to all the veterans who have
fought/died to
> protect the constitution that this clown swore an oath to defend.
[hisss....]
> I dont worry about Republican politicians because if they make a
mistake, the
> liberal media will be all over them, also im not a Republican.
oh, hell...take that and...well....if ANYBODY in a high-ranking
office screws up, the MEDIA [not just the opposing media] is
all over them...Americans are voyeurs like that....
[snip a rambling bit] some of us who call ourselves liberals
actually do have compassion, you know...or do you often make
such judgemental blanket statements?
*Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Fear is the mind-killer. It is the little death that brings total
obliteration...I will let it go over me and through me. And when the
fear is gone, I will turn and see fear's path...and only I will
remain..." --Bene Gesseritt litany from _Dune_ by Frank Herbert
Tilion
that make you?
I think it's a real shame that nasty people like you have to be on this
newsgroup. No, check that. It's a shame that people like you even have
to be in this world.
!_daßurrš
-|> >Whahahaha thrice moron, where do you think the government
-|> >gets its money? Your probably stupid enough to think they can just
-|> print money >endlessly and hand it out,, right?
-|>
-|> >You should>really just go stick your head in the sand and quite pretending you
-|> have a clue.
-|>
-|> Why is it that when conservatives like you lose an argument, you
-|> immediately turn to insults? Nowhere in any thing I've written have I
-|> insulted you personally. What is the point? If you think your ideology
-|> or that of Ayn Rand is so far superior to liberalism , then present the
-|> argument rather than simply turning to nastiness.
Dont know, whenever I lose an argument to a liberal, guess I'll find out.
Certainly hasnt happened here. How is it your whining conjecture is suppose to
be proof of anything? You have no logic or factual info to back up anything yet
you claim winning an argument, LOL, most typical liberal, ignore evidence
against you and claim the 'moral high ground', the hypocrisy is staggering!
-|> >If you like European government, go there by all means.
-|>
-|> Oh, the America: Love it or Leave It Thing, huh? Well, the people here
-|> elected Bill Clinton. Maybe it's you that America doesn't really suit.
-|>
What doesnt ''suit'' me is when LESS THAN 25% of elegibal voters manage to elect
a total asshole then claim they are a majority... what a laugh you are. Well
nothing is perfect, certainly not the electoral process we have, but I can live
with it.
-|> >Clinton does nothing to ''run the
-|> >country'' anyway except announce bs agendas and programs that amount to
-|> nothing
-|> >but government spending to enlist more voters.
-|>
-|> Precisely what I said. It's the corporations that run everything.
-|>
You really havent a clue, have you, hehe, let me make it as simple as I can for
you. The government takes the money (in taxes/fees) from corporations and
individuals, then doles that money out how they see fit. This is one way
they(gov.) have controll, and what career politicians love. Corporations(rich
ones) can 'buy' a small degree of influence from politicians, (more gov.
controll) who sell votes, but then the corporations also employ half the people
in this country, now where is all that liberal compasion for your comrades who
work for corporations.
-|> >Yes Clinton reminds me of Saruman, the way he can stand there and lie
-|> with such >a strait face
-|>
-|> And Bill Gates doesn't remind you of Saruman? Who is consuming
-|> everything in his path, BC or BG? The ONLY real choice you now have in
-|> an OS for your PC is Windows '98; i.e., unless you have $40K to buy a
-|> Unix box. (I use a Mac but there's virtually no software left for it,
-|> and BG now controls much of Apple anyway.) BTW, Newt Gingrich is an
-|> *honest* man? Why is it *only* liberals that are liars? For 15 years,
-|> Republican Mike Bowers *lied* to the people of this state by rigorously
-|> enforcing Georgia's Blue Laws (sodomy and adultery) while violating
-|> those laws by having an affair himself. Why didn't he arrest himself?
-|>
No, Bill Gates reminds me of someone who took advantage of a business situation,
made a lot of money, and became highly envied by liberals who would love to have
that money(tho they did nothing to earn it). Why did your Mac cost so much, and
why is there no software for it? Because those greedy boys at Apple wanted the
rights all to themselves.
As far as Clinton is concerned, hes done nothing but use the office of the
president to hide behind and try to conceal his illegal and immoral activity. I
cant think of a much bigger insult to all the veterans who have fought/died to
protect the constitution that this clown swore an oath to defend.
I dont worry about Republican politicians because if they make a mistake, the
liberal media will be all over them, also im not a Republican. As far as Bowers
is concerned, he didnt win his re-election primay anyway, but I would not
support him after his affair became public.
By the way, I have a linux box that cost me about $200.00 and works just fine.
-|> >Those 'mean spirited' corporations your so fond of bashing, provide
-|> >work>and a living for most of your fellow americans, but your oblivious to
-|> >that.
-|>
-|> An all those small bookstores and software and computer makers that
-|> Barnes & Noble and BG put out of business didn't? BTW, not only do
-|> corporations rape and destroy the environment and smaller businesses,
-|> they also severely limit consumer choice. For example, I can go to
-|> Barnes&Noble and find plenty of books by Stephen King and about Princess
-|> Diana, but very little fine or obscure literature. Try finding anything
-|> by Clark Ashton Smith or Lord Dunsany or Jack Vance at a large corporate
-|> chain store. BTW, I don't think providing *work* to destroy the forests
-|> of the Pacific NW or Atlanta is honorable or desirable. If corporations
-|> can't find anything better to do than turn the U.S. into Mordor, what
-|> good are they?
-|>
Again, where is that famous liberal compassion for your comrades who derive a
living from corporations, seems like your compassion disappears whenever it
doesnt suit your purposes. Of course there are hundreds of small independant
book stores in Atlanta(just ignore facts when they dont suit you) that would
have most obscure authors you can come up with. Never mind that the new big
book chains, make new releases more affordable. Hey you should be protesting
all books anyway, after all TREES had to be killed to make them! "Turning the
US into Mordor" - more knee jerk idiocy from the looney left.
-|> >Your wonderful Atlanta city
-| >government has managed to squander millions of tax dollars without
-|> >accomplishing anything as far as rebuilding the city infrastructure, (except for
-|> >Olympic park, and Turner Field)
-|>
-|> (The City of Atlanta had very little to do with either Turner Field OR
-|> the Olympic Park. It was the AOC.) Let's see, developers come in here
-|> and clog up the Chattahoocheee and large numbers of corpoarate workers
-|> move here and create massive traffic problems and yet it's the CITY
-|> that's supposed to solve these expensive and difficult problems while
-|> people like YOU complain about high taxes and the excesses of government
-|> power? In your ideal Randian, laissez-fare world, why should the City of
-|> Atlanta be responsible for anything?
-|>
Yet another fallacy, ACOG was approved by the Atlanta city council for all the
spending done in the city limits. Not that thats a real point anyway, since
the money spent was largely federal taxes not local. Finally, in Rands
philosophy there is nothing "laissez faire" about individual responisbility, but
then again, if you had a clue here, you wouldnt be batting a thousand.
-|> >and if you think the roads are clogged with traffic now,
-|> >guess what it would be like without a "massive highway system".
-|>
-|> I would be able to breathe the air a little better. That's for sure.
Try this, put your head in the oven, (dont forget to turn it on), youll be
breathing much better soon, TRUST ME! Good luck, moron.
For those who do have an I.Q. that breaks the century mark, try ' We the
Living' - Ayn Rand this exemplifies the futility of socialism beyond all
doubt.
Joe Bader
Megan Westerfield <west...@mc.edu>Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:22:58 -0500 writes:
:>where in the world do you get this stuff?
Arkady Bogdanov
--
Arkady.
________________________________________
"La salute non si paga!" Bolognian Economist, 1960
"That is what capitalism is, a version of feudalism in which capital
replaces land, and business leaders replace Kings"
Vladimir Taneev, Russian Eco-economist
________________________________________
!_daßurrš <wx...@nattybumpo.net> wrote in article
<6qb0g8$1u0...@news.mindspring.com>...
> ***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; ž *****
>
Steuard Jensen
> Does anyone know why both Ayn Rand and Tolkien seem
> to be popular among the same people?
Now that's a pattern that I hadn't noticed, actually. Perhaps Rand
groupies are excited by a person who had the arrogance to create an
entire world on his own. Or maybe they just read Tolkien for the
Saruman bits. (But do they cry when Frodo's attempt to claim the Ring
is foiled by Gollum's bite?)
While I haven't read much of Ayn Rand's literature (only the short
novel _Anthem_), I have read quite a bit about "Objectivism" in my
philosophy courses. I have to agree with your comments: just about
everything by Rand or her groupies makes me vaguely ill. (Why do I
keep using the word "groupies"? That's just the impression I've
gotten in my philosophy classes reading their essays. When they quote
Rand they sound like fundamentalists quoting the Bible. As I recall,
most "objectivist philosophers" seem bent on clarifying and
interpreting Rand's work rather than coming up with their own ideas.)
Whew... nice rant.
Steuard Jensen
Megan Westerfield
> It's the black helicopters.
oh...*Rabbyt looks up uneasily*
!_daßurrš
-|> > "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
-|> > "His lips are moving."
-|>
-|> I heard this about lawyers...same difference I suppose.
-|>
Guess what,,, Clinton is both a politician and a lawyer.
hehe,
slam and dunk!
***** !_daßur...@mindspring.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; ş *****
solomon
wrote:
>In article <cgp+yDBf...@kew1.demon.co.uk>, Mike Kew <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>-|> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, !_daßurrš <wx...@nattybumpo.net> wrote
>-|>
>-|> >Yes Clinton reminds me of Saruman, the way he can stand there and lie
>-|> with such
>Ok, here is the line that exemplifies this best,
>
> from Valaquenta -on Melkor
>
>"Understanding he turned to subtlety in perverting to his own will all that he
>would use, until he became a liar without shame."
>
>Man! If that doesnt describe Clinton to a tee!!! So I will have to retract the
>"reminds me of Saruman" and change that to 'reminds me of Morgoth'.
Hey, that's exactly what I want in a politician. A person who can lie
out both sides of their mouth at the same time, and do it
convincingly. Clinton's approval is as high as it is for a reason.
Personally, I love the lying, pot-smoking, womanizing bastard.
Did Morgoth have interns?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remembered that I loved her passionately;
at the same time she happened not to exist.
- Aleister Crowley, "Diary of a Drug Fiend"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bruce Labbate
br...@cc.gatech.edu
UIN: 2406085
Nick(IRC/Usenet): Solomon
!_daßurrš
[big snip]
e. As I recall,
-|> most "objectivist philosophers" seem bent on clarifying and
-|> interpreting Rand's work rather than coming up with their own ideas.)
-|> Whew... nice rant.
-|> Steuard Jensen
Which is exactly what Ive found about those who rant about socialism, not very
creative but good at distorting the work of others. Interesting, the most
creative scientist, business types etc. tend to lean toward the objectivist
philosophy while those who live off of others (politicians, etc) condemn them.
"Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money ---
only for wanting to keep your own money."
¬
(Joseph Sobran)
***** !_daßur...@mindspring.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; þ *****
solomon
>By the way, I have a linux box that cost me about $200.00 and works just fine.
As for the political and philosophical argument that's going on, I
have absolutely no motivation to get involved. It's all just rhetoric
bullshit anyway. ;)
However, whoever claimed that you need $40k for a good linux box is
full of shit. $200 is just about right. Any programmer worth his
salt can make a $200 box run circles around most WinXX machines. The
only reason an individual might spend $40k on a box is if he has no
fucking idea what he's doing with it in the first place and decides
that maybe if he just gets an SGI machine, everything will be fine.
solomon
wrote:
<snip the "witty banter">
>so...[Rabbyt gets a little red in the face...] Now we've stooped
>to blanket insulting each other's political persuasions.
Unfortunately. But it's good for a laugh.
>> -|> Precisely what I said. It's the corporations that run
>everything.
>
>where in the world do you get this stuff?
>
It's the truth, Rabbyt. The government is pretty much just a toy at
this point.
>> As far as Clinton is concerned, hes done nothing but use the
>office of the
>> president to hide behind and try to conceal his illegal and
>immoral activity. I
>> cant think of a much bigger insult to all the veterans who have
>fought/died to
>> protect the constitution that this clown swore an oath to defend.
>
>[hisss....]
Rabbyt, are you a Clinton supporter? ;)
!_daßurrš
-|> Well, for a moron, at least I can tell 'your' from 'you're.' What does
-|> that make you?
-|>
-|> I think it's a real shame that nasty people like you have to be on this
-|> newsgroup. No, check that. It's a shame that people like you even have
-|> to be in this world.
-|>
Thats right! You get chopped to bits on reason, so you must resort to ''those
mean people arent nice, I wish they would go away'' ahhaawwhaaaa
get chore blankey, get chore bottle and your blankey....
"The human race divides itself politically into those who want to be controlled,
and those who have no such desire." -
¬
Robert A. Heinlein
***** !_daßur...@mindspring.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; þ *****
solomon
<melle...@gatech.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Well, for a moron, at least I can tell 'your' from 'you're.' What does
>that make you?
Oh, c'mon. There were a multitude of spelling and grammatical errors
in this little debate. But there's not much point in nit-picking.
>I think it's a real shame that nasty people like you have to be on this
>newsgroup. No, check that. It's a shame that people like you even have
>to be in this world.
Tilion, c'mon. No need for that. He has an opinion, and he's
expressing it. Perhaps the forum and method are less than ideal, but
he more than has the right to say what he wants. Saying things like
your last statement quoted above makes you seem irrational or
ignorant, when in reality most of us know that you are neither. I
sincerely hope that you didn't mean what you said.
Megan Westerfield
> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:22:58 -0500, Megan Westerfield <west...@mc.edu>
> wrote:
> <snip the "witty banter">
> >so...[Rabbyt gets a little red in the face...] Now we've stooped
> >to blanket insulting each other's political persuasions.
> Unfortunately. But it's good for a laugh.
*shakes head* only sometimes....
> >> -|> Precisely what I said. It's the corporations that run
> >everything.
> >where in the world do you get this stuff?
> It's the truth, Rabbyt. The government is pretty much just a toy at
> this point.
perhaps. But I cater more to the idea of the industrial-military
complex, which is not quite the same thing....
> >> As far as Clinton is concerned, hes done nothing but use the
> >office of the
> >> president to hide behind and try to conceal his illegal and
> >immoral activity. I
> >> cant think of a much bigger insult to all the veterans who have
> >fought/died to
> >> protect the constitution that this clown swore an oath to defend.
> >[hisss....]
> Rabbyt, are you a Clinton supporter? ;)
by no means. No way. Only when I my overly-democratic best friend
puts a gun to my head. *hiss*
Arkady Bogdanov
> >everything.
> >
> >
> It's the truth, Rabbyt. The government is pretty much just a toy at
> this point.
I agree... Ooops, Im not alowed to mention my political opinions.
Sorry all. ;-)
SMGCFAM
>situation,
>made a lot of money, and became highly envied by liberals
Like Orin Hatch, right?
l...@my-dejanews.com
do you mean Ayn Rand advocated transfer of wealth from rich to poor?
If you read one page of ANY of her book you would know that she did
no such thing.
Lev Bass
In article <01bdc000$5469e140$2b06...@PeteMyring.ugc>,
"Arkady Bogdanov" <zs...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> I dont think Ayn Rands books are about selfishness, they are about getting
> wealth from the upper classes to give to the lower classes, in the process
> of this you make society as a whole richer. A very noble concept.
>
>
ker...@delphi.com
>As far as Clinton is concerned, hes done nothing but use the office of the
>president to hide behind and try to conceal his illegal and immoral activity. I
>cant think of a much bigger insult to all the veterans who have fought/died to
>protect the constitution that this clown swore an oath to defend.
this proves too taxing for you, to one Ronald Wilson Reagan. If memory
serves, each of these Republican presidents perverted the Constitution
_they_ were sworn to defend, and in way that show Clinton's pranks and
escapades for what they are; that is, insignicant nonsense that no serious
person gives a damn about.
What about the forty-plus MILLION of _your hard earned money_ that Kenneth
Starr has already spent - without turning up anything concrete - and the
bottomless pit his "investigation" has become?
Can't you think of better ways that you or your government could spend that
kind of money? I sure can!
--
Kerry Elizabeth Thompson
(Tinuviel)
KER...@delphi.com
solomon
wrote:
>In article <199808052231...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, smg...@aol.com (SMGCFAM) wrote:
>-|> > "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
>-|> > "His lips are moving."
>-|>
>-|> I heard this about lawyers...same difference I suppose.
>-|>
>
>
>Guess what,,, Clinton is both a politician and a lawyer.
>
>hehe,
>
>slam and dunk!
Don't get too excited. Anybody with half a brain knows Clinton's a
liar. That's part of why I like him.
Thomas Otterson
>
> !_daßurrš <wx...@nattybumpo.net> writes:
>
> >As far as Clinton is concerned, hes done nothing but use the office of the
> >president to hide behind and try to conceal his illegal and immoral activity. I
> >cant think of a much bigger insult to all the veterans who have fought/died to
> >protect the constitution that this clown swore an oath to defend.
>
> this proves too taxing for you, to one Ronald Wilson Reagan. If memory
> serves, each of these Republican presidents perverted the Constitution
> _they_ were sworn to defend, and in way that show Clinton's pranks and
> escapades for what they are; that is, insignicant nonsense that no serious
> person gives a damn about.
> What about the forty-plus MILLION of _your hard earned money_ that Kenneth
> Starr has already spent - without turning up anything concrete - and the
> bottomless pit his "investigation" has become?
> Can't you think of better ways that you or your government could spend that
> kind of money? I sure can!
Okay, acknowledging the extreme danger of this act, I officially enter a
political discussion. It seems to me that if you look at it
objectively, EVERY president of the second half of this century has been
subject to a lot of criticism from the opposing party. What this means
to me is that either the whole lot of them are unfit to lead, or a lot
of people are trying to push forward their own agenda at the expense of
others. I tend to believe the latter.
Thomas
"To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must _want_
to rule people are, ipso facto, the least suited to do it. To summarize
the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President
should on no account be allowed to do the job."
-Douglas Adams, _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_
ker...@delphi.com
>>-|> > "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
>>-|> > "His lips are moving."
>>-|>
>>-|> I heard this about lawyers...same difference I suppose.
You see a squashed snake in the road, and you see a squashed lawyer. How
can you tell the difference?
The snake's the one with skid marks in front of it.
The Arcane Chas
Tilion wrote in message <35C9369E...@gatech.campus.mci.net>...
>Well, for a moron, at least I can tell 'your' from 'you're.' What does
>that make you?
>
>newsgroup. No, check that. It's a shame that people like you even
>have to be in this world.
>
Please try to quote from the post to which you are replying and
include the Author's name. That way, those of us who read our news
"offline" don't have to wonder who you're insulting or why !!!!
Cheers,
Chas.
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Arkady Bogdanov" <zs...@dial.pipex.com> contains these words:
> > Pick the communist country of your choice and move there,,, the sooner
> the
> > better....
> There are no true Communist countrys in the world, they are all state
> controlled, which is not true communism.
Yes, but why is it every revolution that started out with Communist
ideals ended up stae-controlled?
Read Das Kapital by Marx, or check
> out www.worldrevolution.org (one of many good sites) to find out how a
> perfect society should run, plus some exelent links.
There's a case for saying a perfect society should run that way, yes.
But people have been trying to perfect society since long before
Marx, and it's never worked; and neither, to date, has Marx. So why
should we go on expecting him to?
Evolution, not revolution.
Cheers,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
!_daßurrš
-|> On Thu, 06 Aug 1998 19:12:29 GMT, wx...@nattybumpo.net (!_daßurrš)
-|> wrote:
-|>
-|> >In article <199808052231...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
-|> smg...@aol.com (SMGCFAM) wrote:
-|> >-|> > "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
-|> >-|> > "His lips are moving."
-|> >-|>
-|> >-|> I heard this about lawyers...same difference I suppose.
-|> >
-|> >
-|> >Guess what,,, Clinton is both a politician and a lawyer.
-|> >hehe,
-|> >
-|> >slam and dunk!
-|>
-|> Don't get too excited. Anybody with half a brain knows Clinton's a
-|> liar. That's part of why I like him.
-|>
-|> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-|> I remembered that I loved her passionately;
-|> at the same time she happened not to exist.
-|> - Aleister Crowley, "Diary of a Drug Fiend"
-|> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-|> Bruce Labbate
-|> br...@cc.gatech.edu
-|> UIN: 2406085
-|> Nick(IRC/Usenet): Solomon
I take it your a big fan of all-things Mordor...
***** !_daßur...@mindspring.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; ž *****
CFoster885
At least he gets the job done, if Reagan was still in we would all be living in
card board boxes.
"Metal and plastic are one with flesh and blood, for neither can inherit the
Kingdom of God. On the day of Reckoning all will be equal, machines and men.
Then shall the dust return to the Earth as it was..." - In His Own Image, Lloyd
Biggle
Tilion
there SEEMS to be some correlation between fans of Ayn Rand and J.R.R.
Tolkien (something that I had previously been unaware of and am somewhat
confused by), and this guy laid into me for no reason. Go down and look
at Aelfwine's comment. He seems to be a Randian or libertarian and yet
he answered the question without getting nasty, as did a couple of
others. Part of my hyperbolic reaction has to do with the fact that I am
from the South; and here we regard politeness highly. (If you live in
Atlanta, you should know that.) And when someone is gratuitously
impolite, Southerners tend to react in a fashion disproportional to the
original offense. I am willing to debate anyone, anytime, anywhere, but
when someone calls me a moron or tells me to stick my head in an oven, I
feel the need to defend myself accordingly.
I must say though that I am not surprised that you criticized me for my
reaction rather than the intial offender. That seems to be the strange
sort of political correctness in the air nowadays. It is apparently all
right for someone to be spontaneously and unjustifiably rude, but
reacting negatively to such verbal abuse is worthy of criticism.
CFoster885
>reaction rather than the intial offender. That seems to be the strange
>sort of political correctness in the air nowadays. It is apparently all
>right for someone to be spontaneously and unjustifiably rude, but
>reacting negatively to such verbal abuse is worthy of criticism.
I know exactly what you are talking about
Andreia Gaita
> >"reminds me of Saruman" and change that to 'reminds me of Morgoth'.
>
> Hey, that's exactly what I want in a politician. A person who can lie
> out both sides of their mouth at the same time, and do it
> convincingly. Clinton's approval is as high as it is for a reason.
> Personally, I love the lying, pot-smoking, womanizing bastard.
How can one lie out of both sides of their mouth at the same time? I'm trying
(bghhhfdd smmmzzsshf)... Do they have special tongues to divert the sound to
the sides? I can't do it... Of course, I'm not a lawyer...
> Did Morgoth have interns?
Ahhh... good question...
AvG
Developer and otherwise computer nut
jup...@highfiber.com
Guys, even I'm tired of this crap sucking up our bandwidth now. Take it to a
political newsgroup, please? Some of us could care LESS, not because we
support Clinton, but because he's just like every other politician. He's a
criminal. ALL politicians are criminal, to some extent. Clinton's just not
smart enough to not get caught is all. Does this make him worse? Nope, just
proves that the presidency attracts one specific kind of induhvidual. Rich
dorks. :)
solomon
<tias...@geocities.com> wrote:
>> >Man! If that doesnt describe Clinton to a tee!!! So I will have to retract the
>> >"reminds me of Saruman" and change that to 'reminds me of Morgoth'.
>>
>> Hey, that's exactly what I want in a politician. A person who can lie
>> out both sides of their mouth at the same time, and do it
>> convincingly. Clinton's approval is as high as it is for a reason.
>> Personally, I love the lying, pot-smoking, womanizing bastard.
>
>How can one lie out of both sides of their mouth at the same time? I'm trying
>(bghhhfdd smmmzzsshf)... Do they have special tongues to divert the sound to
>the sides? I can't do it... Of course, I'm not a lawyer...
See how talented he is? ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remembered that I loved her passionately;
at the same time she happened not to exist.
- Aleister Crowley, "Diary of a Drug Fiend"
solomon
<melle...@gatech.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Hey, HE was the one who started the name-calling. ALL I did was ask why
>there SEEMS to be some correlation between fans of Ayn Rand and J.R.R.
>Tolkien (something that I had previously been unaware of and am somewhat
>confused by), and this guy laid into me for no reason. Go down and look
>at Aelfwine's comment. He seems to be a Randian or libertarian and yet
>he answered the question without getting nasty, as did a couple of
>others. Part of my hyperbolic reaction has to do with the fact that I am
>from the South; and here we regard politeness highly. (If you live in
>Atlanta, you should know that.)
Actually, I do. :) I go to GaTech. Although, originally, I'm from
Boston, so politeness while growing up would earn you a quick "Go fuck
yourself" from street vendors, salespeople, etc...
>And when someone is gratuitously
>impolite, Southerners tend to react in a fashion disproportional to the
>original offense. I am willing to debate anyone, anytime, anywhere, but
>when someone calls me a moron or tells me to stick my head in an oven, I
>feel the need to defend myself accordingly.
Agreed.
>I must say though that I am not surprised that you criticized me for my
>reaction rather than the intial offender. That seems to be the strange
>sort of political correctness in the air nowadays. It is apparently all
>right for someone to be spontaneously and unjustifiably rude, but
>reacting negatively to such verbal abuse is worthy of criticism.
Well, Tilion, you neglected to quote any reference text in your post.
I didn't feel like wading through the oratorial crap that abounds in
the rapidly growing manifesto that is the original post. So, I
decided to read the responses, which were MUCH shorter, so as to grasp
the general idea of the original argument. I came upon your post,
which seemed quite vicious and, to use your word, impolite.
I apologize if it seems that I singled you out, but your words were
the only ones that I saw. If somebody else drove you to say that,
then I would like to plead with them to stop as well. I tried to be
polite in my criticism, but if that was not the effect that was given,
once again I apologize.
solomon
wrote:
>In article <35ca3b3d....@news.tiac.net>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (solomon) wrote:
>-|> On Thu, 06 Aug 1998 19:12:29 GMT, wx...@nattybumpo.net (!_daßurrš)
>-|> wrote:
>-|>
>-|> >In article <199808052231...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>-|> smg...@aol.com (SMGCFAM) wrote:
>-|> >-|> > "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
>-|> >-|> > "His lips are moving."
>-|> >-|>
>-|> >-|> I heard this about lawyers...same difference I suppose.
>-|> >-|>
>-|> >
>-|> >
>-|> >Guess what,,, Clinton is both a politician and a lawyer.
>-|> >
>-|> >hehe,
>-|> >
>-|> >slam and dunk!
>-|>
>-|> Don't get too excited. Anybody with half a brain knows Clinton's a
>-|> liar. That's part of why I like him.
>-|>
>I take it your a big fan of all-things Mordor...
>
I just want my representatives in the government to be able to lie
convincingly and often. And please refrain from quoting my .sig in
the reference text.
!_daßurrð
emmm yummy, more fodder! Thank you Lord for placing this bountiful platter
before me...
In article <x-VPshM...@delphi.com>, ker...@delphi.com wrote:
-|> !_daßurrš <wx...@nattybumpo.net> writes:
-|>
-|> >As far as Clinton is concerned, hes done nothing but use the office of
-|> >the president to hide behind and try to conceal his illegal and immoral
-|> >activity. I
-|> >cant think of a much bigger insult to all the veterans who have
-|> > fought/died to protect the constitution that this clown swore an oath to defend.
-|>
-|> Cast your mind back, if you will, to one Richard Millhouse Nixon. Or, if
-|> this proves too taxing for you, to one Ronald Wilson Reagan. If memory
-|> serves, each of these Republican presidents perverted the Constitution
-|> _they_ were sworn to defend, and in way that show Clinton's pranks and
-|> escapades for what they are; that is, insignicant nonsense that no serious
-|> person gives a damn about.
I dont have to cast to remember Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, etc. What I do
remember is Nixon got caught using his office to spy on his political
advisaries, somthing Clinton has already done (remember the 100 FBI files on
Republicans in the whitehouse) of course he has no idea what they where doing
there and we should believe him because he, after all, NEVER LIES! Nixon would
have been thrown out at least 5 times for doing the crap that Clinton has gotten
away w/ SO FAR! The fact that you bring up Nixon to defend Clinton shows that
either you are very desperate, or very dumb.
Just so we know what you stand for, adultery, lieing, conspiring to obstruct
justice, is no big deal to you. And thats just the Lewinsky scandal, there are
plenty more to choose from.
-|> What about the forty-plus MILLION of _your hard earned money_ that Kenneth
-|> Starr has already spent - without turning up anything concrete - and the
-|> bottomless pit his "investigation" has become?
-|> Can't you think of better ways that you or your government could spend
-|> that kind of money? I sure can!
Money well spent if it will stop you liberal parrots from echoing the same
tired, excuses about "its a right-wing conspiracy" and "there out to get my
husband/the president". Its really sad when people who take themselves to be
''serious'', have no ability to reason. The obvious importance of honesty in
the office of the president seems to fly past your head like a speeding bullit.
I would hate to go through life like that,, glad I'm not you.
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
crisis, maintain their neutrality." .- Dante, The Inferno
!_daßurrš
-|> >Guess what,,, Clinton is both a politician and a lawyer.
-|>
-|> living in card board boxes.
-|> "Metal and plastic are one with flesh and blood, for neither can inherit
-|> the Kingdom of God. On the day of Reckoning all will be equal, machines and
-|> men. Then shall the dust return to the Earth as it was..." - In His Own Image,
-|> Lloyd Biggle
I take it your not an economics major... if you knew anything about that
subject, you would know that Allen Greenspan, not Clinton is about the only
person in goverment that has anything to do w/ the economy, if Clinton had his
way (stopped by congress) he would have spent us into a much larger debt than
we are in now. The economic upturn started during Bushes admin., Clinton was
the lucky benefactor who showed up just in time to take credit for it(something
else hes good at).
***** !_daßur...@mindspring.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; ş *****
Megan Westerfield
> -|> Cast your mind back, if you will, to one Richard Millhouse Nixon. Or, if
> -|> this proves too taxing for you, to one Ronald Wilson Reagan. If memory
> -|> serves, each of these Republican presidents perverted the Constitution
> -|> _they_ were sworn to defend, and in way that show Clinton's pranks and
> -|> escapades for what they are; that is, insignicant nonsense that no serious
> -|> person gives a damn about.
> I dont have to cast to remember Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, etc. What I do
> remember is Nixon got caught using his office to spy on his political
> advisaries, somthing Clinton has already done (remember the 100 FBI files on
> Republicans in the whitehouse) of course he has no idea what they where doing
> there and we should believe him because he, after all, NEVER LIES! Nixon would
> have been thrown out at least 5 times for doing the crap that Clinton has gotten
> away w/ SO FAR!
He has a point...
The fact that you bring up Nixon to defend Clinton shows that
> either you are very desperate, or very dumb.
However, friend, this is not the way to have an intelligent conversation.
> Just so we know what you stand for, adultery, lieing, conspiring to obstruct
> justice, is no big deal to you. And thats just the Lewinsky scandal, there are
> plenty more to choose from.
*nod* I don't support Clinton, and I'm ashamed of this whole affair..but
this little discussion just reinforces the idea that politics is a topic
best left alone...there are no longer politics. Just ppl ranting and
calling each other names and pointing out the never-ending flaws within
a certain set of political beliefs....
> -|> What about the forty-plus MILLION of _your hard earned money_ that Kenneth
> -|> Starr has already spent - without turning up anything concrete - and the
> -|> bottomless pit his "investigation" has become?
> -|> Can't you think of better ways that you or your government could spend
> -|> that kind of money? I sure can!
> Money well spent if it will stop you liberal parrots from echoing the same
> tired, excuses about "its a right-wing conspiracy" and
"there out to get my
> husband/the president".
*sigh* you know, at this point, I fancy I smell a bonfire being built
in daburro's backyard for all liberals. *sigh* Ryan, can I move to
New Zealand to avoid the persecution?
Its really sad when people who take themselves to be
> ''serious'', have no ability to reason. The obvious importance of honesty in
> the office of the president seems to fly past your head like a speeding bullit.
> I would hate to go through life like that,, glad I'm not you.
And I would hate to be you, if you think all liberals are whining, empty-
headed parrots. And I find it sad that b/c of one man's idiocy, ppl
would assume that a whole section of ppl are just like him and that his
supporters are morons too. I repeat, I don't support Clinton. I think he's
a nymphomaniacal wash-up, but I don't hold it against ppl who support him.
*Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
"Something breaks the silence
When the water takes you home
I hear the wordless voices
When the water takes me home."
--Rush, "High Water"
!_daßurrš
-|> The message <01bdc003$52849f20$2b06...@PeteMyring.ugc>
-|> from "Arkady Bogdanov" <zs...@dial.pipex.com> contains these words:
-|>
-|>
-|>
-|> > > Pick the communist country of your choice and move there,,, the
-|> sooner
-|> > the
-|> > > better....
-|>
-|>
-|> > There are no true Communist countrys in the world, they are all state
-|> > controlled, which is not true communism.
-|> Yes, but why is it every revolution that started out with Communist
-|> ideals ended up stae-controlled?
-|>
-|> Read Das Kapital by Marx, or check
-|> > out www.worldrevolution.org (one of many good sites) to find out how a
-|> > perfect society should run, plus some exelent links.
-|>
-|> There's a case for saying a perfect society should run that way, yes.
-|> But people have been trying to perfect society since long before
-|> Marx, and it's never worked; and neither, to date, has Marx. So why
-|> should we go on expecting him to?
-|>
-|> Evolution, not revolution.
-|>
-|> Cheers,
-|>
-|> Mike
-|>
A rather excellent point that seems to be willfully ignored by those who believe
some form of socialism is the road to utopia.
"We have sunk so low it has become the obligation of every decent,
thinking individual to re-state the obvious!"
-- George Orwell
ker...@delphi.com
>> It's the truth, Rabbyt. The government is pretty much just a toy at
>> this point.
>
>I agree... Ooops, Im not alowed to mention my political opinions.
>Sorry all. ;-)
individual politicians, is bought and paid for by large, powerful
corporations. Jerry Brownhas been saying so for years, and he's
absolutely right.
ker...@delphi.com
>"To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must _want_
>to rule people are, ipso facto, the least suited to do it. To summarize
>the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President
>should on no account be allowed to do the job."
>
>-Douglas Adams, _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_
I was beginning to feel a little unloved.
Far more importantly, the Quote from Doglas Adams is mind-bogglingly
apt. The things he says usually are.
Wonder if our friend, !_da_urp - the over-entrepreneurized, sanctimonious,
tree-hating, workingman-hating, Republican redneck, knows who Doglas
Adams is. I certainly doubt that Tolkien would be honored to have him as a
reader.
Ryan Paddy
> On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, !_daßurrð wrote:
> <some flames of Clinton and liberals, like:>
> > Money well spent if it will stop you liberal parrots from echoing the same
> > tired, excuses about "its a right-wing conspiracy" and
> > "there out to get my husband/the president".
>
> *sigh* you know, at this point, I fancy I smell a bonfire being built
> in daburro's backyard for all liberals. *sigh* Ryan, can I move to
> New Zealand to avoid the persecution?
We have problems of our own.Of course, like your problems, they are unsuitable for
discussion here.
Which is not to say that I am opposed to off topic discussion - that would surely be
hypocritical. But this political debate, especially it is approached in the way that
!_daßurrð has here, is not really a discussion at all. Seeing you've pulled me in, I'd
suggest you refrain from attempting rational argument with !_daßurrð on this matter.
It doesn't seem to be his forte:
> > Its really sad when people who take themselves to be
> > ''serious'', have no ability to reason. The obvious importance of honesty in
> > the office of the president seems to fly past your head like a speeding bullit.
> > I would hate to go through life like that,, glad I'm not you.
>
> And I would hate to be you, if you think all liberals are whining, empty-
> headed parrots. And I find it sad that b/c of one man's idiocy, ppl
> would assume that a whole section of ppl are just like him and that his
> supporters are morons too. I repeat, I don't support Clinton. I think he's
> a nymphomaniacal wash-up, but I don't hold it against ppl who support him.
I don't hold anything against nymphomaniacs.
Righto!
Ryan
['...unfortunately']
!_daßurrđ
go through life like that,, glad I'm not you.
-|> And I would hate to be you, if you think all liberals are whining, empty-
-|> headed parrots. And I find it sad that b/c of one man's idiocy, ppl=20
-|> would assume that a whole section of ppl are just like him and that his
-|> supporters are morons too. I repeat, I don't support Clinton. I think he's
-|> a nymphomaniacal wash-up, but I don't hold it against ppl who support
-|> him.=
-|> *Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
-|>
Well, of course I dont go around twisting the heads off of every liberal i meet,
that would get quite tiresome. Case in point: I dont agree with the political
beliefs of Jimmy Carter, however I think he is a very honest, and decent person.
Not only does he believe his convictions, HE LIVES THEM! Jimmy Carter has more
moral fiber in one of his little fingernails than Bill Clinton has in his entire
bloated body. I would trade Clinton for Carter in a second, just to restore
some dignity to the country. Anyway, dont move to New Zealand just yet...
Indifference can be as dangerous to a people as fanaticism.
¬ daburro
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
crisis, maintain their neutrality."
.- Dante, The Inferno
***** !_daßur...@mindspring.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; þ *****
!_daßurrš
-|> Which is not to say that I am opposed to off topic discussion - that would
-|> surely be hypocritical. But this political debate, especially it is approached in
-|> the way that !_daßurrð has here, is not really a discussion at all. Seeing you've
-|> pulled me in, I'd suggest you refrain from attempting rational argument with !_daßurrð on
-|> this matter It doesn't seem to be his forte:
Did you have some logical or factual evidence to back that up? None was
offered, you criticize my rationality when you offer only opinion, how very
clever, perhaps you should take your own advice...
-|> Ryan
-|>
-|> ['...unfortunately']
-|>
solomon
wrote:
>
>"Something breaks the silence
> When the water takes you home
> I hear the wordless voices
> When the water takes me home."
> --Rush, "High Water"
Is this just to irritate me? ;)
solomon
wrote:
>In article <x-VPshM...@delphi.com>, ker...@delphi.com wrote:
>-|> !_daßurrš <wx...@nattybumpo.net> writes:
>-|>
>-|> >As far as Clinton is concerned, hes done nothing but use the office of
>-|> >the president to hide behind and try to conceal his illegal and immoral
>-|> >activity. I
>-|> >cant think of a much bigger insult to all the veterans who have
>-|> > fought/died to protect the constitution that this clown swore an oath to defend.
>-|>
>-|> Cast your mind back, if you will, to one Richard Millhouse Nixon. Or, if
>-|> this proves too taxing for you, to one Ronald Wilson Reagan. If memory
>-|> serves, each of these Republican presidents perverted the Constitution
>-|> _they_ were sworn to defend, and in way that show Clinton's pranks and
>-|> escapades for what they are; that is, insignicant nonsense that no serious
>-|> person gives a damn about.
>
>I dont have to cast to remember Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, etc. What I do
>remember is Nixon got caught using his office to spy on his political
>advisaries, somthing Clinton has already done (remember the 100 FBI files on
>Republicans in the whitehouse) of course he has no idea what they where doing
>there and we should believe him because he, after all, NEVER LIES! Nixon would
>have been thrown out at least 5 times for doing the crap that Clinton has gotten
>away w/ SO FAR! The fact that you bring up Nixon to defend Clinton shows that
>either you are very desperate, or very dumb.
Most likely just desperate. Don't act like an ass. Whether or not
their actions are morally reprehensible is of no matter, since Nixon,
Carter, Reagan, Bush and nearly every other modern president has used
the office to spy on their "enemies," or to otherwise illegally obtain
information that they would not normally be privy to. Clinton has
done nothing worse than they have, but instead he is put under a much
harsher and more comprehensive manner of criticism and investigation.
He wasn't bringing up Nixon to defend Clinton as much as he was
bringing him up to set precedent.
>Just so we know what you stand for, adultery, lieing, conspiring to obstruct
>justice, is no big deal to you. And thats just the Lewinsky scandal, there are
>plenty more to choose from.
>
Clinton's adultery, lying, alleged obstruction of justice, and
anything else he might have done, are certainly not a big deal to me.
I find them amusing, but it goes no further. They do not affect me
unless I give them the power to do so. The only way that they could
affect me in a greater capacity is if Clinton were to be successfully
impeached (or otherwise removed), which is almost certain not to
happen.
>-|> What about the forty-plus MILLION of _your hard earned money_ that Kenneth
>-|> Starr has already spent - without turning up anything concrete - and the
>-|> bottomless pit his "investigation" has become?
>-|> Can't you think of better ways that you or your government could spend
>-|> that kind of money? I sure can!
>
>Money well spent if it will stop you liberal parrots from echoing the same
>tired, excuses about "its a right-wing conspiracy" and "there out to get my
>husband/the president". Its really sad when people who take themselves to be
>''serious'', have no ability to reason. The obvious importance of honesty in
>the office of the president seems to fly past your head like a speeding bullit.
>I would hate to go through life like that,, glad I'm not you.
And I, friend, am glad I'm not you. First of all, have you no concept
of the amount of damage that a truly honest president would do to our
country? The importance of deception in the same office seems to fly
past your head like the concept of proper spelling and grammar. What
we have obtained, we have obtained through lying, deception, and
theft, all throughout our country's history. Liberal, conservative,
libertarian, independent, anything. We all owe everything that we
have to such deception. Secondly, the spending of the funds has not
stopped the "liberal parrots" from echoing their excuses. Nothing
that Starr can turn up will stop the paranoids from chanting their
refrain of "right-wing conspiracy." On this point, however, I agree
with you. They are indeed misled and simply throwing out excuses, but
a waste of $40 million will not stop their actions.
As I seem to have jumped into this argument, let me just say that I am
not a real "liberal" or "conservative," nor am I democrat or
republican. Truthfully, my ideas lean towards Marxism and the
original French Socialism.
Also, I would like to jump back to Nixon for a second. We all know
that both Nixon and the current President have used spying devices to
gain information on their enemies. Everybody knows this. But why,
then, was it a much greater offense when Nixon did it? Because the
media inflated the importance of the matter. Once Nixon resigned, the
issue lost its media appeal and practically vanished, despite the fact
that successive presidents continued these actions. Since the issue
now had no audience, it was ignored by the media, and thus by even the
authorities. Now, we have the media enlarging the President's
womanizing. After this all blows over, with either the resignation of
Clinton or the end of his term of office, it will have lost its
appeal, just as spying did. Do you truly believe that the next
President, whoever it may be, won't have the luxury of simply being
able to admit to whatever frivolities he has engaged in? A candidate
could admit to smoking pot and having an affair without affecting his
chances to a great extent, because we've already heard it and for the
most part, we do not any longer give a damn.
And finally, nothing that I have stated herein has been from any
identifiable standpoint. Every concept that I have used applies to
both liberals and conservatives, as I have equal respect for each.
!_daßurrð
-|> On Fri, 07 Aug 1998 19:28:08 GMT, wx...@nattybumpo.net (!_daßurrš)
-|> Most likely just desperate. Don't act like an ass. Whether or not
-|> their actions are morally reprehensible is of no matter, since Nixon,
-|> Carter, Reagan, Bush and nearly every other modern president has used
-|> the office to spy on their "enemies," or to otherwise illegally obtain
-|> information that they would not normally be privy to.
If you have evidence that Carter, Reagan, and Bush did this, I for one would
love to hear about it! So would many other people, however, I suspect this is
pure conjecture on your part.
> Clinton has
-|> done nothing worse than they have, but instead he is put under a much
-|> harsher and more comprehensive manner of criticism and investigation.
Umm, over 90% of graduating journalists are liberal, Democrats, (yes there is
data to prove it) and you CLAIM they have been overly harsh and unfair w/
Clinton. Fine, thats your opinion, the facts say otherwise.
-|> He wasn't bringing up Nixon to defend Clinton as much as he was
-|> bringing him up to set precedent.
Either way, a very bad idea.
-|>
-|> >Just so we know what you stand for, adultery, lieing, conspiring to
-|> obstruct justice, is no big deal to you. And thats just the Lewinsky scandal,
-|> there are >plenty more to choose from.
-|> >
-|> Clinton's adultery, lying, alleged obstruction of justice, and
-|> anything else he might have done, are certainly not a big deal to me.
-|> I find them amusing, but it goes no further. They do not affect me
-|> unless I give them the power to do so. The only way that they could
Great, you dont care, well I do care, and regardless of what your polls say, I
believe the majority of Americans do care also.
-|> affect me in a greater capacity is if Clinton were to be successfully
-|> impeached (or otherwise removed), which is almost certain not to
-|> happen.
We'll see.
-|>
clip
-|> >I would hate to go through life like that,, glad I'm not you.
-|> And I, friend, am glad I'm not you. First of all, have you no concept
-|> of the amount of damage that a truly honest president would do to our
-|> country? The importance of deception in the same office seems to fly
-|> past your head like the concept of proper spelling and grammar.
I will let you correct my spelling and grammer, since that IS IMPORTANT to you.
>> What
-|> we have obtained, we have obtained through lying, deception, and
-|> theft, all throughout our country's history. Liberal, conservative,
-|> libertarian, independent, anything. We all owe everything that we
-|> have to such deception.
When I hear you say this, I realize no amount of logical rational will affect
you and whatever crap youve been ingesting has likely done permanent damage.
[clipped]
-|> Bruce Labbate
-|> br...@cc.gatech.edu
-|> UIN: 2406085
-|> Nick(IRC/Usenet): Solomon
I dont care what brand of socialism you subscribe to, its all the same garbage
in the end. Government over people rather than by people. My ancestors and
relatives died protecting this country from people like you, and Im willing to
do the same, ARE YOU?
"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of
judgment and nothing can help you escape it -- that no substitute can do your
thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life -- that the vilest form of
self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the
mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance
of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man
between your consciousness and your existence."
--- Ayn Rand. in "Atlas Shrugged"
***** !_daßur...@mindspring.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; ž *****
Tilion
responsibility of
>judgment and nothing can help you escape it -- that no substitute can
do your
>thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life -- that the vilest form
of
>self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind
to the
>mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the
acceptance
>of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as
middle-man
>between your consciousness and your existence."
> --- Ayn Rand. in "Atlas
Shrugged"
What this seems to be saying is that YOU are always right regardless of
how much evidence or how many facts someone else presents, because such
facts or evidence can always be interpreted as mere ASSERTIONS or SAY-SO
(at LEAST that's the suggestion here) and to accept the argument of
another is to admit to some kind of subordination. A belief in the the
above quote makes it far too easy to dismiss someone else's opinion out
of hand without a careful consideration of what the other person has to
say. If most people thought like this, we would still be making flat
maps of the Earth instead of globes. It's no wonder that conservatives
(and I do believe that Ayn Rand is a major influence on the conservative
movement in the U.S.) disbelieve polls that say Clinton is generally
popular. Why he can't be, for Bill Clinton doesn't think the way *I* do,
and the way *I* think is the only politically popular way.
solomon
wrote:
>In article <35ccc67f...@news.tiac.net>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (solomon) wrote:
>-|> On Fri, 07 Aug 1998 19:28:08 GMT, wx...@nattybumpo.net (!_daßurrš)
>
>-|> Most likely just desperate. Don't act like an ass. Whether or not
>-|> their actions are morally reprehensible is of no matter, since Nixon,
>-|> Carter, Reagan, Bush and nearly every other modern president has used
>-|> the office to spy on their "enemies," or to otherwise illegally obtain
>-|> information that they would not normally be privy to.
>
>If you have evidence that Carter, Reagan, and Bush did this, I for one would
>love to hear about it! So would many other people, however, I suspect this is
>pure conjecture on your part.
Of course it's conjecture. That should be rather clear. But it is
conjecture with precedent.
>> Clinton has
>-|> done nothing worse than they have, but instead he is put under a much
>-|> harsher and more comprehensive manner of criticism and investigation.
>
>Umm, over 90% of graduating journalists are liberal, Democrats, (yes there is
>data to prove it) and you CLAIM they have been overly harsh and unfair w/
>Clinton. Fine, thats your opinion, the facts say otherwise.
>
Firstly, please quote the source of any such concrete statistics.
Secondly, I never once said that they were overly harsh or unfair.
They're just doing their job and they are doing it fairly. He has to
expect this sort of attention being the man of stature that he is.
However, as I say, they are just doing their job. Liberal,
conservative, whatever, the most important things to them are ratings
and money. Any journalist out there would be more than happy to
slander the president at their job for the sake of better ratings and
more attention, and then go home and vote for him at election time.
So please refrain from misstating my "opinion." My opinion does not
attempt to refute the facts, but merely postulates that the facts that
you have stated are for the most part irrelevant.
>
>-|> He wasn't bringing up Nixon to defend Clinton as much as he was
>-|> bringing him up to set precedent.
>
>Either way, a very bad idea.
>
I'll agree with you there. ;)
>-|>
>-|> >Just so we know what you stand for, adultery, lieing, conspiring to
>-|> obstruct justice, is no big deal to you. And thats just the Lewinsky scandal,
>-|> there are >plenty more to choose from.
>-|> >
>-|> Clinton's adultery, lying, alleged obstruction of justice, and
>-|> anything else he might have done, are certainly not a big deal to me.
>-|> I find them amusing, but it goes no further. They do not affect me
>-|> unless I give them the power to do so. The only way that they could
>
>Great, you dont care, well I do care, and regardless of what your polls say, I
>believe the majority of Americans do care also.
I agree with you on the fact that the polls are not entirely accurate.
Clinton is given roughly a 65% approval rating at this time, which is
insanely high. However, if you had bothered to look at why this
rating might actually be so high, you would see that the American
people, no matter what their political bias, care more about the
economy and their own money than they do about the President's
scandals. Approval rises with a bull market and that is what we have
seen. If the majority of Americans cared more about the scandals than
the market, I believe we'd be seeing much different results in the
polls, and much different reporting in the media.
>
>-|> affect me in a greater capacity is if Clinton were to be successfully
>-|> impeached (or otherwise removed), which is almost certain not to
>-|> happen.
>
>We'll see.
>
I sincerely do not believe that Clinton is in danger of impeachment.
>-|>
>clip
>-|> >I would hate to go through life like that,, glad I'm not you.
>-|> And I, friend, am glad I'm not you. First of all, have you no concept
>-|> of the amount of damage that a truly honest president would do to our
>-|> country? The importance of deception in the same office seems to fly
>-|> past your head like the concept of proper spelling and grammar.
>
>I will let you correct my spelling and grammer, since that IS IMPORTANT to you.
Well, I just find your stunning ignorance of homophones to be amusing.
>>> What
>-|> we have obtained, we have obtained through lying, deception, and
>-|> theft, all throughout our country's history. Liberal, conservative,
>-|> libertarian, independent, anything. We all owe everything that we
>-|> have to such deception.
>
>When I hear you say this, I realize no amount of logical rational will affect
>you and whatever crap youve been ingesting has likely done permanent damage.
Since I'm allowed to correct your spelling now, I believe you meant
"rationale," not "rational." Answer me this: How did we obtain
original settlements in this country? How did we expand this country?
How did Grant and Harding get elected? How did we win the two World
Wars? Where did most of our income come from between the years of
1607 and 1865? Why were we so successful at Yalta? And there are far
simpler matters as well. Why did Marconi get credit for the radio?
Why was Tesla turned down when he proposed a method for free
electricity for the country? Why haven't clean methods of energy
production caught on? Why does our country still even exist???
Can you think of one treaty debate, one war, one trade agreement where
deception has been less effective than the truth? Christ, you sound
like a member of S.A.L.T.
>
>I dont care what brand of socialism you subscribe to, its all the same garbage
>in the end. Government over people rather than by people.
You really aren't familiar with the concepts put forth by Marxism or
Socialism, are you? It's not all the same, my friend. You're
probably the kind of person who confuses Bolshevism and Stalinism.
>My ancestors and
>relatives died protecting this country from people like you, and Im willing to
>do the same, ARE YOU?
>
Your ancestors and relatives also stole land from the original
inhabitants, killed and pillaged when necessary, and bartered human
lives. So did mine. And this is only going back about 400 years.
And tell me, exactly who are "people like me?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be the pirate if you'll be the loot;
I'll jump out a plane if you'll be my
parachute.
You better catch me or I'll kill you.
- Mary Timony, "I'll get you, I mean it"
Tehanu
>In article <199808062...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk>, Mike Scott Rohan
<mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>-|> The message <01bdc003$52849f20$2b06...@PeteMyring.ugc>
>-|> from "Arkady Bogdanov" <zs...@dial.pipex.com> contains these words:
>-|>> controlled, which is not true communism.
>-|>
>-|> Yes, but why is it every revolution that started out with Communist
>-|> ideals ended up stae-controlled?
>-|>
>-|> Read Das Kapital by Marx, or check
>-|> out www.worldrevolution.org (one of many good sites) to find out how a
>-|> perfect society should run, plus some exelent links.
>-|>
>-|> There's a case for saying a perfect society should run that way, yes.
>-|> But people have been trying to perfect society since long before
>-|> Marx, and it's never worked; and neither, to date, has Marx. So why
>-|> should we go on expecting him to?
>-|>
>-|> Evolution, not revolution.
>
>believe some form of socialism is the road to utopia.
I would consider the form of socialism prevalent in Europe to be far more of
a utopia than the American corporationism. Don't be so narrow-minded and
stop polluting the newsgroup with personal political opinions.
"Nothing takes the past away
Like the future
Nothing makes the darkness go
Like the light
You're shelter from the storm
Give me comfort
In your arms"
"Nothing Really Matters" - Madonna
ker...@delphi.com
>that would get quite tiresome. Case in point: I dont agree with the political
>beliefs of Jimmy Carter, however I think he is a very honest, and decent person.
>Not only does he believe his convictions, HE LIVES THEM! Jimmy Carter has more
>moral fiber in one of his little fingernails than Bill Clinton has in his entire
>bloated body. I would trade Clinton for Carter in a second, just to restore
>some dignity to the country. Anyway, dont move to New Zealand just yet...
of a few more, as well as Clinton, that he outclasses.
Maybe, if you don't want people to assume that you're an ignornt bumpkin
you ought ot to try expressin g yourself rationally, as in this post, more
often.
I also think that those of us who feel strongly on the subject, should
get together and institue some sort of "get out the vote" drive here on the
group. I'm sure our friends in t other countries wouldn't object strenuously.
You're absolutely right that voter turn out has been abysmal for some year.
If we all added "Don't forget to vote on November 3)" to our .sigs,
the point would be bound to get acros. I can't do it for this message
since I'm online. I'll change it as soon as I get off, though.
Megan Westerfield
> Well, of course I dont go around twisting the heads off of every
liberal i meet,
> that would get quite tiresome.
*Rabbty wipes the sweat off her brow* well, that's a relief...
Case in point: I dont agree with the political
> beliefs of Jimmy Carter, however I think he is a very honest,
and decent person.
> Not only does he believe his convictions, HE LIVES THEM!
Jimmy Carter has more
> moral fiber in one of his little fingernails than Bill Clinton has in his entire
> bloated body.
Yes, that's true. But it takes more than just moral fiber and
convictions to make a president. Carter wasn't really good at
policy.
I would trade Clinton for Carter in a second, just to restore
> some dignity to the country. Anyway, dont move to New Zealand just yet...
I'm not, just yet...
> Indifference can be as dangerous to a people as fanaticism.
You got that right.
> "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
> crisis, maintain their neutrality."
> .- Dante, The Inferno
One of my fav quotes!
*Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
Megan Westerfield
> On Fri, 7 Aug 1998 14:37:48 -0500, Megan Westerfield <west...@mc.edu>
> wrote:
> >"Something breaks the silence
> > When the water takes you home
> > I hear the wordless voices
> > When the water takes me home."
> > --Rush, "High Water"
> Is this just to irritate me? ;)
No--why, does it?
NeuronsRUs
>> to be popular among the same people?
I hadn't noticed it either, but it isn't as weird as a church I went to where
several of the Christians cited "Atlas Shrugged" as one of the most life
changing books they had ever read!
I found it funny in her books that those without much power or money were
always happy (except for the guard in Atlas Shrugged who was shot to death) to
be trampled underfoot in support of the "progress" of the powerful.
I have never been able to figure out just what Objectivism is. It seems to be
"enlightened self-interest" but then there comes someone who utterly changes
what an act of self-interest is!
Regards,
John
Tehanu
>> "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of
>> moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
>> .- Dante, The Inferno
>
>One of my fav quotes!
Seriously? Seems to me like it's the kind of preaching all rational people
should have left behind in the Dark Ages. Don't get me wrong, I would have
liked it if only it wasn't "moral" in a Christian context.
ker...@delphi.com
>Megan Westerfield wrote in message ...
>>> "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of
>>> moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
>>> .- Dante, The Inferno
>>
>>One of my fav quotes!
>
>Seriously? Seems to me like it's the kind of preaching all rational people
>should have left behind in the Dark Ages. Don't get me wrong, I would have
>liked it if only it wasn't "moral" in a Christian context.
objection to morality or moralizing, except when it's Christian morality
or moralizing. In other words, it's Christiany you object to.
I guess I can cope with that. But, if this is the case, you're going to
have problems with the grater part of Wstern literature up until, maybe,
the latter halkf of the 20th Century, and even some from t hen.
After all, Christianity is the underpinning of most Western thought, and has
been for, ahem, round abot 2,000 years.
Having been hasty before, in this case I'm trying not to rush to judge
or criticize. I'm merely pointing out that if you don't like Dante
because he was a Catholic, you probably won't like much else in Wesstern
literature of the past two milleniaa.
David Salo
> >>> "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of
> >>> moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
> >>> .- Dante, The Inferno
Why is this quote being passed off as coming from Dante's Inferno, when
it is neither found in the poem nor corresponds to Dante's outlook?
According to Dante, the worst places in Hell (which are the _coldest_) are
reserved to those who are treacherous to their lords. In Dante's world,
the "true neutrals" are, in a symbolically appropriate way, kept out of
both heaven and hell, but nonetheless suffer a variety of torments (but not
the worst in hell).
DS
Megan Westerfield
> Megan Westerfield wrote in message ...
> >> "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of
> >> moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
> >> .- Dante, The Inferno
> >
> >One of my fav quotes!
> Seriously?
Yes. I would have indicated whether I was joking if I meant otherwise.
Seems to me like it's the kind of preaching all rational people
> should have left behind in the Dark Ages. Don't get me wrong, I would have
> liked it if only it wasn't "moral" in a Christian context.
I consider the implication of it more important than the context.
*Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
====================================
====================================
== ==
== I didn't mean to take ==
== up all your sweet time- ==
== I'll give it right back ==
== to you one of these days. ==
== -Jimi Hendrix ==
== ==
====================================
====================================
Ron Ploeg
>
> > >>> "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of
> > >>> moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
> > >>> .- Dante, The Inferno
>
> it is neither found in the poem nor corresponds to Dante's outlook?
> According to Dante, the worst places in Hell (which are the _coldest_) are
> reserved to those who are treacherous to their lords. In Dante's world,
> the "true neutrals" are, in a symbolically appropriate way, kept out of
> both heaven and hell, but nonetheless suffer a variety of torments (but not
> the worst in hell).
>
> DS
Right. Still, I think the quote is briljant. Could anyone please tell me
who we are actually quoting here? Rabbyt? (Since it is one of your
favourite quotes)
Thanks,
Ron Ploeg
!_daßurrš
-|> Thomas Otterson <tjb...@primenet.com> writes:
-|>
-|> >"To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must _want_
-|> >to rule people are, ipso facto, the least suited to do it. To summarize
-|> >the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President
-|> >should on no account be allowed to do the job."
-|> >
-|> >-Douglas Adams, _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_
-|>
-|> Thanks for quoting my message; apparently, no one else noticed it, and
-|> I was beginning to feel a little unloved.
-|> Far more importantly, the Quote from Doglas Adams is mind-bogglingly
-|> apt. The things he says usually are.
-|> Wonder if our friend, !_da_urp - the over-entrepreneurized,
*** wonders,, just exactly how anyone can be "over-entrepreneurized", then just
as quickly becomes disinterested...***
-|> sanctimonious,
*** some saying about a pot and a kettle comes to mind... ***
-|> tree-hating
[ you'd hate trees to, if you where forever getting your cat (who loves to climb
up, but hates down) out of all the trees in your yard, many of which I put
there]
-|> workingman-hating
*** hehe, yow, I just hate people like me... ***
-|> Republican redneck
[ does that tell a little about you maybe?, so all Republicans are rednecks,
sterotyping from the left, what wonderful incite, and from you, the friend of
the working-man, though Im not a Republican, Id prefer being called that to a
liberal anyday.]
-|> knows who Doglas Adams is.
Nope, dont know a 'Doglas' Adams,
-|> I certainly doubt that Tolkien would be honored to have him as
-|> a reader.
That is really quite amusing! LOL....
So long and thanks for all the laughs....
***** !_daßur...@nosebleed.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; þ *****
!_daßurrš
-|> >> Does anyone know why both Ayn Rand and Tolkien seem
-|> >> to be popular among the same people?
-|>
-|> I hadn't noticed it either, but it isn't as weird as a church I went to
-|> where several of the Christians cited "Atlas Shrugged" as one of the most life
-|> changing books they had ever read!
Add one more to your list... it made me understand why government is more
interested in doing whats best for governments interest, than mine.
-|>
-|> I found it funny in her books that those without much power or money were
-|> always happy (except for the guard in Atlas Shrugged who was shot to
-|> death) to be trampled underfoot in support of the "progress" of the powerful.
-|>
-|> I have never been able to figure out just what Objectivism is. It seems
-|> to be "enlightened self-interest" but then there comes someone who utterly
-|> change what an act of self-interest is!
-|>
-|> Regards,
-|> John
self-interest
conservative definition - acting in the best interest of ones self and
immediate family.
democratic definition - greedy, not willing to share the fruits of ones labor
w/ everyone else.
liberal definition - evil incarnate
Hope that clears it up for you John.
" We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where
the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act
only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history,
the stage of rule by brute force. "
~ Ayn Rand in "The Nature of Government"
!_daßurrð
-|> >"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the
-|> responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it -- that no substitute can
-|> do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life -- that the vilest form
-|> of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind
-|> to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the
-|> acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as
-|> middle-man between your consciousness and your existence."
-|> > --- Ayn Rand. in "Atlas
-|> Shrugged"
-|>
-|>
-|> What this seems to be saying is that YOU are always right regardless of
-|> how much evidence or how many facts someone else presents, because such
-|> facts or evidence can always be interpreted as mere ASSERTIONS or SAY-SO
-|> (at LEAST that's the suggestion here) and to accept the argument of
-|> another is to admit to some kind of subordination. A belief in the the
-|> above quote makes it far too easy to dismiss someone else's opinion out
-|> of hand without a careful consideration of what the other person has to
-|> say. If most people thought like this, we would still be making flat
-|> maps of the Earth instead of globes. It's no wonder that conservatives
-|> (and I do believe that Ayn Rand is a major influence on the conservative
-|> movement in the U.S.) disbelieve polls that say Clinton is generally
-|> popular. Why he can't be, for Bill Clinton doesn't think the way *I* do,
-|> and the way *I* think is the only politically popular way.
-|>
So have you had this learning impairment long? No where do I see anything that
could even be remotely interpreted as saying blow off facts and logic as
assertion and say-so. Distinguishing betweeen fact and what is someones opinion
is largely what this particular quote is all about. You are apparently not use
to the phrase "question authority". Then you postulate that progress would
more or less stop without accepting other peoples opinions as fact. And yet
another assertion that conservatives dont believe polls because they dont agree
with them.
Im more interested in knowing who took these polls, what is there political
motivation? What is the exact wording of the questions asked? What
demographic area was polled? Those seemingly small details can have a very
drastic effect on the outcome of polls. Now that we know that the media is no
longer in business to report facts, but to make money, as your liberal, tech
pal, Solomon even agrees with, what guarantee do we have against bias by the
media source reporting these polls?
We have jokes like Jer-aldo Riviara, portraying themselves as "libertarians" to
the public, HA what an insult to libertarians everywhere! That Clinton
apologist is no more a libertarian than I am a Chinese gymnist. Channels like
CNN (Clinton News Network) have become direct pipelines for the Clinton
'spinmeisters' of the day to reach the public. The average viewer, I imagine,
would expect something that calls itself a "news network" to report primarily
facts, yet when CNN reports political news, at least 90% of it should have the
now extinct 'editorial' warning on the bottom of the screen, to let them know
they are getting opinion rather than fact. Unfortunately I am old enough to
remember when news agencys did report facts expectedly and reliably, another
reason I understand the importance of diseminating the truth out of the
hodgepodge of half-truths and opinions being reported these days.
The really sad part is that many like yourself seem not to care anymore what
happens, and that your more than willing to trade individual freedom for the
convenience of having a government that will make decisions for you.
The inevitable outcome of this trend will be a government deciding that you
really have no need to make any decisions for yourself at all. This is really
what Rand is warning you of, yet you seem to have no will to listen.
"Giving money and power to the government is like giving car keys and whisky to
teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
!_daßurrđ
-|> Can we discuss this at alt.politics.radical-left please?
-|>
So would that be your favorite news group, Bogdanov? Plenty of communist there
that would agree with you, no doubt.
***** !_daßur...@nosebleed.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; ş *****
!_daßurrš
-|>
-|> Did Morgoth have interns?
-|>
-|> Bruce Labbate
You mean besides Bill Clinton???
Eat more crow.
¬ daburro
***** !_daßur...@nosebleed.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; ž *****
!_daßurrš
-|> !_daßurrš <wx...@nattybumpo.net> writes:
-|>
-|> political >beliefs of Jimmy Carter, however I think he is a very honest, and decent
-|> person. >Not only does he believe his convictions, HE LIVES THEM! Jimmy Carter
-|> has more >moral fiber in one of his little fingernails than Bill Clinton has in his
-|> entire >bloated body. I would trade Clinton for Carter in a second, just to
-|> restore >some dignity to the country. Anyway, dont move to New Zealand just
-|> > yet...
-|>
-|> No doubt President Carter would be touched at your generosit. I can think
-|> of a few more, as well as Clinton, that he outclasses.
-|> Maybe, if you don't want people to assume that you're an ignornt bumpkin
-|> you ought ot to try expressin g yourself rationally, as in this post, more
-|> often. I also think that those of us who feel strongly on the subject, should
-|> get together and institue some sort of "get out the vote" drive here on
-|> the group. I'm sure our friends in t other countries wouldn't object
-|> strenuously. You're absolutely right that voter turn out has been abysmal for some
-|> year If we all added "Don't forget to vote on November 3)" to our .sigs,
-|> the point would be bound to get acros. I can't do it for this message
-|> since I'm online. I'll change it as soon as I get off, though.
Of course the whole point is Jimmy Carter doesnt care what I or you or anyone
thinks, he does what he does because he believes its right, it is his
convictions that are important to him.
Clinton on the other hand is really only worried about being admired, that and
collecting more power for himself, to help his friends get re-elected. He
doesnt really appear to have any convictions aside from power-mongering and
doing whatever he feels like (monica). We know lying and adultery are second
nature to him. He is a much better actor than Reagan ever was. Biting his lip,
with the 'Im so concerned' look on his face, he's really quite amusing.
Strangely he is one of the few people that can make me laugh and puke
simultaneously. Well, enough about your hero.
.
.
.
"ignornt bumpkin" - hehe that pretty much sez it all!
Thanks for playing,
solomon
wrote:
>In article <01bdc135$32907f80$2b06...@PeteMyring.ugc>, "Arkady Bogdanov" <zs...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>-|> Can we discuss this at alt.politics.radical-left please?
>-|>
>
>
>So would that be your favorite news group, Bogdanov? Plenty of communist there
>that would agree with you, no doubt.
Hey, the only self-proclaimed communist in this group is ME, me bucko.
Lay off of Bogdanov.
ste...@my-dejanews.com
wx...@nattybumpo.net (!_daßurrđ) wrote:
> In article <6qcfnr$g7m$1...@cinenews.claremont.edu>, sje...@hmc.edu (Steuard
Jensen) wrote:
>
> [big snip]
> e. As I recall,
> -|> most "objectivist philosophers" seem bent on clarifying and
> -|> interpreting Rand's work rather than coming up with their own ideas.)
> -|> Whew... nice rant.
> -|> Steuard Jensen
>
> Which is exactly what Ive found about those who rant about socialism, not very
> creative but good at distorting the work of others. Interesting, the most
> creative scientist, business types etc. tend to lean toward the objectivist
> philosophy while those who live off of others (politicians, etc) condemn them.
(This isn't from my usual server; it never actually received the above
message.)
This is rather interesting. I should point out that I am a scientist,
recently graduated from a top science/engineering school with high
distinction. I like to think that as I go on I'll prove myself to be in the
more creative camp rather than less. I am also far closer to socialism than
objectivism, and take pleasure not only in knowledge for its own sake but for
its potential benefits for humanity as a whole. Many of my friends at my
college (like me, scientists, mathematicians, and programmers) had
socialistic leanings if they had any political preferences at all. In my
philosophy classes (which, at that school, were also typically filled with
scientists and engineers), I found that when Rand came up, there were fairly
equal numbers of people arguing for and against her views (most of the
classes were fairly apathetic). I noticed no tendency for either group to be
composed of students noticably above or below the school's "average
intelligence level".
I am trying very hard not to resent your implication that I and my closest
friends are "not very creative" and "live off the work of others". My
comments about the lack of creativity among "objectivist philosophers" were
not meant to refer to all adherents of the philosophy but only to those
(other than Rand herself) whose ideas I have seen published in philosopical
books and journals. Any implications my observation may have regarding
adherents of objectivism in general are very indirect and left entirely to
the reader.
Steuard Jensen
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
solomon
wrote:
>self-interest
>
>conservative definition - acting in the best interest of ones self and
>immediate family.
>
>democratic definition - greedy, not willing to share the fruits of ones labor
>w/ everyone else.
>
>liberal definition - evil incarnate
>
>
>Hope that clears it up for you John.
Gee, show much bias? Please don't make yourself look foolish.
solomon
wrote:
>In article <35d4feed...@news.tiac.net>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (solomon) wrote:
>
>-|>
>-|> Did Morgoth have interns?
>-|>
>-|> Bruce Labbate
>
>You mean besides Bill Clinton???
>
Hee hee, I like that one.
Megan Westerfield
> >self-interest
> >conservative definition - acting in the best interest of ones self and
> >immediate family.
*nod*
> >democratic definition - greedy, not willing to share the fruits of ones labor
> >w/ everyone else.
*nod*
> >liberal definition - evil incarnate
*hiss* that is not true. it's rather unwise to make such blanket
statements like that.
> Gee, show much bias?
a lot.
Megan Westerfield
> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:11:46 GMT, wx...@nattybumpo.net (!_daßurrð)
> wrote:
> >In article <35d4feed...@news.tiac.net>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (solomon) wrote:
> >
> >-|>
> >-|> Did Morgoth have interns?
> >-|>
> >-|> Bruce Labbate
> >
> >You mean besides Bill Clinton???
> >
> Hee hee, I like that one.
*grin* what about OJ? or Kenneth Starr? or..dare I say it?....JANET
RENO????
Megan Westerfield
> >So would that be your favorite news group, Bogdanov? Plenty of communist there
> >that would agree with you, no doubt.
> Hey, the only self-proclaimed communist in this group is ME, me bucko.
> Lay off of Bogdanov.
really? I don't remember you claiming your communism..
ker...@delphi.com
Clinton is NOT my hero.
You, on the other hand, apparently believe that Nute Gingrig is an honest
man. I don't know whether to infer from this tht you are mentally unstable and
thus should be locked up for your own protection
and that of society at large, or that you are merely stupid. Either way, it's
a pity.
Tehanu
>>>> moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
>>>> .- Dante, The Inferno
>>>
>>
>>should have left behind in the Dark Ages. Don't get me wrong, I would have
>>liked it if only it wasn't "moral" in a Christian context.
>
>objection to morality or moralizing, except when it's Christian morality
>or moralizing.
If you're asking whether the only kind of morality I dislike is the
Christian, I'd have to say no.
>In other words, it's Christiany you object to.
>I guess I can cope with that. But, if this is the case, you're going to
>have problems with the grater part of Wstern literature up until, maybe,
>the latter halkf of the 20th Century, and even some from t hen.
I already do.
>After all, Christianity is the underpinning of most Western thought, and
>has been for, ahem, round abot 2,000 years.
Make that 1 600 years at most. Or redefine "Western" for me.
>Having been hasty before, in this case I'm trying not to rush to judge
>or criticize. I'm merely pointing out that if you don't like Dante
>because he was a Catholic, you probably won't like much else in Wesstern
>literature of the past two milleniaa.
I dislike Christian ideas, among others. I imagine most people don't read
the works of writers whose world-view and attitude is diametrally opposed to
their own.
!_daßurrš
-|> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:08:20 GMT, wx...@nattybumpo.net (!_daßurrš)
-|> wrote:
-|>
-|> >self-interest
-|> >
-|> >conservative definition - acting in the best interest of ones self and
-|> >immediate family.
-|> >
-|> >democratic definition - greedy, not willing to share the fruits of ones
-|> labor
-|> >w/ everyone else.
-|> >
-|> >liberal definition - evil incarnate
-|> >
-|> >
-|> >Hope that clears it up for you John.
-|>
-|> Gee, show much bias? Please don't make yourself look foolish.
-|> Bruce Labbate
Not to concerned w/ what someone wearing your maroon tinted glasses thinks...
foolish, after your conspiracy theory spiel, you really have room to talk! HA!
Not to concerned w/ what someone wearing your maroon tinted glasses thinks...
Joe Bader
:>Not to concerned
Please!! It's _too_ when used as an intensifier.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++ Theatre of the mundane: +++
+++ "What we really wanted to do +++
+++ was let the restaurant tell +++
+++ its own story." +++
+++ +++
+++ 'Disney' Imagineer +++
+++ as heard on some god unimaginably +++
+++ too expensive U.S. cable system +++
+++ +++
+++ Joe Bader j...@primary.net +++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
solomon
wrote:
>In article <35d0298d...@news.tiac.net>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (solomon) wrote:
>-|> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:08:20 GMT, wx...@nattybumpo.net (!_daßurrš)
>-|> wrote:
>-|>
>-|> Gee, show much bias? Please don't make yourself look foolish.
>
>-|> Bruce Labbate
>
>Not to concerned w/ what someone wearing your maroon tinted glasses thinks...
>
>foolish, after your conspiracy theory spiel, you really have room to talk! HA!
>
>Not to concerned w/ what someone wearing your maroon tinted glasses thinks...
You said that twice for emphasis, I assume?
Please remind me of my "conspiracy theory" spiel.
Tilion
The rest of your post was fine. Why ruin it with one nasty statement?
> No where do I see anything that
>could even be remotely interpreted as saying blow off facts and logic
as
>assertion and say-so. Distinguishing betweeen fact and what is someones
opinion
>is largely what this particular quote is all about.
But this quote doesn't tell you how to distunguish between facts and
assertions. That's the danger here. It simply says "..acceptance of his
assertions as facts." In the end, EVERYTHING that anyone ever tells you
is nothing more than an assertion, including that which is presented as
fact. So if I can't accept assertions, then how can I ever accept ANY
argument, as they all contain assertions of some sort? As I said, this
quote seems to me to make it a little too easy to dismiss the argument
of another. At the very least, Rand should have been more careful with
her words here. She should perhaps have said something like "Neither
accept nor deny a person's assertion offhand. Consider very carefully
every "fact" (i.e., what reasonably appears to be factual) that they
present to prove their assertion, and make a decision based on those
facts and any which you yourself are able to present. If the facts show
that their assertion is incorrect, then say so, but state your
reasoning. If the facts show that their assertion is correct, then
graciously accept it, at least ostensibly, even it disagrees with your
own philosophical beliefs. This does not mean that you cannot remain
skeptical of the assertion or continue to look for other facts which may
call into question its validity."
>Then you postulate that progress would more or less stop without
accepting other peoples opinions as fact.
I think a good deal of the decline in civilization has to do with the
fact that people don't listen to one another. There is a big difference
between rigorously considering the opinion of another and dismissing it
out of hand. The former method of debate is condusive to civilized
society. The latter is what leads to flame-wars and real wars, for that
matter.
>And yet another assertion that conservatives dont believe polls because
they dont agree
>with them.
Yes, this is an assertion based on my own observations. For example, I
have seen numerous polls that say that the American people agree with
banning assault weapons; i.e., clip-bearing, large caliber,
semi-automatic rifles. EVERY one of of these polls that I have seen show
that 75-80% of those polled agree with banning this type of firearm,
quite a large majority. And yet, virtually all conservatives, from
Republican Congressmen to spokespeople for the NRA, continuously deny
the results of these polls. Look, if you believe the 2nd Amendment gives
you the right to own an assault rifle, fine. Make an argument based on
that. But don't disparage the results of a wide variety of polls simply
because they don't correspond to your particular viewpoint. BTW, most
polls also show that the American people believe in the 2nd Amendment
and would not ban ALL guns, and yet I haven't seen any liberals
disagreeing with those results.
>Now that we know that the media is no
>longer in business to report facts, but to make money, as your liberal,
tech
>pal, Solomon even agrees with, what guarantee do we have against bias
by the
>media source reporting these polls?
Because if ANY pollster can legitimately be shown to be biased, thay are
going to go out of business. This is because pollsters get their
business mainly from politicians, who rely on polls to run their
campaigns. If a pollster is giving a politician, liberal or
conservative, consistently biased and erroneous data, they are not going
to continue to use them, and neither will anyone else.
>The average viewer, I imagine,
>would expect something that calls itself a "news network" to report
primarily
>facts, yet when CNN reports political news, at least 90% of it should
have the
>now extinct 'editorial' warning on the bottom of the screen, to let
them know
>they are getting opinion rather than fact.
Where are your examples of this bias? When I tune in to CNN, I see the
news being reported, followed by an opinion now and then. Someone says,
for instance, "Ken Starr subpoenaed so and so." How is that biased? Who
cares if the reporter then goes on to speculate on this or that? You
should be able to tell when a reporter starts speculating. I simply
don't see how the simple reporting of facts or events can be biased.
>The really sad part is that many like yourself seem not to care anymore
what
>happens, and that your more than willing to trade individual freedom
for the
>convenience of having a government that will make decisions for you.
>The inevitable outcome of this trend will be a government deciding that
you
>really have no need to make any decisions for yourself at all. This is
really
>what Rand is warning you of, yet you seem to have no will to listen.
Believe it or not, most liberals are libertarians at heart. IMO,
Liberals ONLY support big government because of the emergence of
technology and large populations. These things have lead to great
control of the economy and society in general by corporations and
individuals who are able to "market" things to large numbers of people.
Libertarians (or Randians?) like yourself rave about the domination of
government over individuals, but what about the domination of
corporations and industries over individuals? A perfect example of this
is the automobile industry. Have you ever thought about how much
automakers and insurance companies dominate your life? The road-based
infrastructure in the U.S. is now such that, even in small
neighborhoods, you have to have a car to get anywhere, which means you
have to first buy a car (a major expense, even if you buy a rattletrap)
and then constantly pay for insurance, tags, emissions tests, etc. Try
going somewhere around town without an automobile. You can't do it.
There are few foot or bike paths around, horses are not allowed
anywhere, and mass transit is fairly limited. The only travel option you
have other than a car is to stay at home. So your life outside of your
home exists only if you are willing to subordinate yourself to
automakers and insurance companies. I think that is far worse than
anything the government has ever done to me.
ker...@delphi.com
>I dislike Christian ideas, among others. I imagine most people don't read
>the works of writers whose world-view and attitude is diametrally opposed to
Christian ideas and yet, apparently, read the works of JRRT, who was a
devout Catholic.
ker...@delphi.com
manners. Retire from the field while you still have your sanity!
Grimgard
>Christian ideas and yet, apparently, read the works of JRRT, who was a
>devout Catholic.
I certainly think it's possible to heartily agree with someone on one point,
and to disagree just as heartily on another.
Grimgard
for sale: parachute, used once, never opened. small stain.
ker...@delphi.com
>I certainly think it's possible to heartily agree with someone on one point,
>and to disagree just as heartily on another.
sensible and civilized view. Do youo think there's any chance of its
ever catching on?
!_daßurrð
->Tilion, don't bother. You'll never change urp's mind or teach him better
->manners. Retire from the field while you still have your sanity!
Shame someone didnt tell you the same thing before it was to late.
***** !_daßur...@nosebleed.com *****
***** *****
***** Hands off my cheesypoofs! >; þ *****
Joe Bader
In message <199808132059...@ladder01.news.aol.com> -
grim...@aol.com (Grimgard) writes:
:>
:>>It would seem, then, that you are inconsistant, since you dislike
:>>Christian ideas and yet, apparently, read the works of JRRT, who was a
:>>devout Catholic.
:>
:>I certainly think it's possible to heartily agree with someone on one point,
:>and to disagree just as heartily on another.
:>
:>Grimgard
:>for sale: parachute, used once, never opened. small stain.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nas
>
> >It would seem, then, that you are inconsistant, since you dislike
> >Christian ideas and yet, apparently, read the works of JRRT, who was a
> >devout Catholic.
>
Just because JRRT was a catholic doesn't mean that this in anyway
infringes on the work of middle-earth..., one of the greatest appeals of
his books is that they aren't biased in anyway to one group or another
and that it is indeed a pure work of fiction..., in anycase if it were to
be likened to any religion i would think it was paganism not
christianity.
Nas
Megan Westerfield
> Grimgard <grim...@aol.com> writes:
> >I certainly think it's possible to heartily agree with someone on one point,
> >and to disagree just as heartily on another.
> I agree completely.
I as well.
It strikes me, though, this is an amazingly
> sensible and civilized view.
Yes, it is. It makes sense--you don't have to like all of something.
I'm a big William Faulkner fan; but that doesn't mean that I liked
all of his books. You can agree with someone on one point and disagree
on another--that's what makes discussion/conversation so interesting.
Do youo think there's any chance of its
> ever catching on?
*sigh* if only.....
Grimgard
>sensible and civilized view. Do youo think there's any chance of its
>ever catching on?
Well, since you put it that way, it would certainly never get past Congress,
would it?