Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
If John Galt ran . . .
2 views
Skip to first unread message
bwilson4web
Feb 16, 2012, 7:38:58 PM2/16/12
to
His name would be Mitt Romney.
Bob wilson
Bob wilson
Greg Bacon
Feb 17, 2012, 2:01:57 PM2/17/12
to
Bob Wilson wrote
: His name would be Mitt Romney.
Interesting comparison. What about them makes you link the two?
Greg
--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its
proper name. -- Ayn Rand, Anthem
: His name would be Mitt Romney.
Interesting comparison. What about them makes you link the two?
Greg
--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its
proper name. -- Ayn Rand, Anthem
T.J. Higgins
Feb 17, 2012, 2:24:48 PM2/17/12
to
Greg Bacon
Feb 18, 2012, 10:14:17 PM2/18/12
to
T.J. Higgins wrote
: Greg Bacon wrote
:
: >[...]
: >--
others could have appeared in its place, or none at all.
Greg
--
[Holding a whole industry responsible] for damages, without linking any
particular offense to any particular manufacturer . . . is so laughably
unjust that the only place one might expect to find it taken seriously is
in the American legal system. -- Paul Hein on suits against gun makers
: Greg Bacon wrote
:
: >[...]
: >--
: >Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its
: >proper name. -- Ayn Rand, Anthem
:
: Are you really going to say that sig is random? :^)
There was a non-zero probability that one of at least six hundred
: >proper name. -- Ayn Rand, Anthem
:
: Are you really going to say that sig is random? :^)
others could have appeared in its place, or none at all.
Greg
--
[Holding a whole industry responsible] for damages, without linking any
particular offense to any particular manufacturer . . . is so laughably
unjust that the only place one might expect to find it taken seriously is
in the American legal system. -- Paul Hein on suits against gun makers
bwilson4web
Feb 21, 2012, 10:15:16 AM2/21/12
to
It was pretty much spontaneous but later I heard someone point out
that there are three wings of the Republican party in these
candidates:
1) Mitt - the 'industrialists' who exploited a new 'un-industrialism'
2) Rick - Vatican's Manchurian Candidate . . . might as well elect the
Pope
3) Newt/Ron - Dixiecrats in sheeple skin
The Republican primary reminds me of the 1980s Iraq-Iran war when we
rooted for both sides.
Bob Wilson
Greg Bacon
Feb 22, 2012, 12:01:08 AM2/22/12
to
Bob Wilson <bwils...@gmail.com> wrote
: Excellent sig!
making him dictator to restore the country after their policies,
meddling, and looting had wrecked the economy.
Romney has a hard time sticking to a single political position. I
doubt he could hang on in similar circumstances. Given his RomneyCare
blueprint, I doubt he’d walk out of Twentieth Century Motor either.
I’m genuinely curious to know the link between the two that you see.
: but later I heard someone point out
: 2) Rick - Vatican's Manchurian Candidate . . . might as well elect the
: Pope
Santorum is the worst of the lot, so given their recent record, I am
highly confident he will end up being the Republicans’ nominee.
: 3) Newt/Ron - Dixiecrats in sheeple skin
A good number of Democrats see it differently:
Most of us identify as Democrats or Independents and/or
supported Obama in 2008. We believe that on issues that
matter most – war vs. peace (Iraq, Yemen etc.), civil
liberties (Patriot Act etc.), and crony corporatism
(bailouts etc.) – Obama has pursued a course similar to
George Bush. Our reasoning is laid out in this article
by Robin Koerner on the Huffington Post that “went
viral”, coining the term “Blue Republicans” for those of
more liberal sensibilities who are registering Republican
specifically for Ron Paul.
http://www.bluerepublican.org/about/
: The Republican primary reminds me of the 1980s Iraq-Iran war when we
: rooted for both sides.
I’m rooting for the side of peace and prosperity, which means I can’t
join you in rooting for Obama or for any of the other status quo
candidates who will continue making war both abroad and here at home.
Greg
--
I started golf in my forties, which is the ultimate optimism.
-- Michael J. Fox
: Excellent sig!
:
: It was pretty much spontaneous
In the novel, the ruling politicians tortured Galt with the hope of
: It was pretty much spontaneous
making him dictator to restore the country after their policies,
meddling, and looting had wrecked the economy.
Romney has a hard time sticking to a single political position. I
doubt he could hang on in similar circumstances. Given his RomneyCare
blueprint, I doubt he’d walk out of Twentieth Century Motor either.
I’m genuinely curious to know the link between the two that you see.
: but later I heard someone point out
: that there are three wings of the Republican party in these
: candidates:
:
: 1) Mitt - the 'industrialists' who exploited a new 'un-industrialism'
What is un-industrialism?
: candidates:
:
: 1) Mitt - the 'industrialists' who exploited a new 'un-industrialism'
: 2) Rick - Vatican's Manchurian Candidate . . . might as well elect the
: Pope
Santorum is the worst of the lot, so given their recent record, I am
highly confident he will end up being the Republicans’ nominee.
: 3) Newt/Ron - Dixiecrats in sheeple skin
A good number of Democrats see it differently:
Most of us identify as Democrats or Independents and/or
supported Obama in 2008. We believe that on issues that
matter most – war vs. peace (Iraq, Yemen etc.), civil
liberties (Patriot Act etc.), and crony corporatism
(bailouts etc.) – Obama has pursued a course similar to
George Bush. Our reasoning is laid out in this article
by Robin Koerner on the Huffington Post that “went
viral”, coining the term “Blue Republicans” for those of
more liberal sensibilities who are registering Republican
specifically for Ron Paul.
http://www.bluerepublican.org/about/
: The Republican primary reminds me of the 1980s Iraq-Iran war when we
: rooted for both sides.
I’m rooting for the side of peace and prosperity, which means I can’t
join you in rooting for Obama or for any of the other status quo
candidates who will continue making war both abroad and here at home.
Greg
--
I started golf in my forties, which is the ultimate optimism.
-- Michael J. Fox
Ron Hammon
Feb 22, 2012, 3:07:11 PM2/22/12
to
When did you start hanging out with the good ol' boys? But, that
doesn't make since, since "good ol' boys" are exactly the religious
zealots who are backing Santorum now.
3. How in the WORLD can one, honestly, lump Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich
together?! That is, unless one is stupid enough to lump all Southerners
together, despite unsurmountable political differences.
Let's see. You're listening to the political insights of Protestant
Yankee rednecks?! That's just weird. OH! I forgot. You're just
listening to Republican candidate bashing. That makes more sense.
Ron Hammon
Jean
Feb 22, 2012, 7:47:30 PM2/22/12
to
In article <4F454A...@bellsouth.nyet>,
Ron Paul found an escape from the family dairy in Green Tree Borough, a first
ring suburb of Pittsburgh, the city of champions, bridges, rivers, steel, etc.
http://www.alleghenycounty.us/munimap/profile.asp?muni=49
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
--
killing great barrier reef http://bit.ly/z2J2JK
Ocean Acidification http://ecological-problems.blogspot.com/
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/pH+Time+Series
Exactly http://j.mp/AF2vAR http://www.ckrw.com/
ring suburb of Pittsburgh, the city of champions, bridges, rivers, steel, etc.
http://www.alleghenycounty.us/munimap/profile.asp?muni=49
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
--
killing great barrier reef http://bit.ly/z2J2JK
Ocean Acidification http://ecological-problems.blogspot.com/
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/pH+Time+Series
Exactly http://j.mp/AF2vAR http://www.ckrw.com/
bwilson4web
Feb 23, 2012, 3:37:27 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 21, 11:01 pm, gba...@hiwaay.net (Greg Bacon) wrote:
> Bob Wilson <bwilson4...@gmail.com> wrote
>
. . .
hero.
>
> : but later I heard someone point out
> : that there are three wings of the Republican party in these
> : candidates:
> :
> : 1) Mitt - the 'industrialists' who exploited a new 'un-industrialism'
>
> What is un-industrialism?
"Certainly, the 1980s and ’90s was a time when Wall Street financiers
went on a dog-eat-dog scramble to buy companies. These pin-striped new
owners sometimes squeezed workers in a bid to make the acquired
company more profitable. They sometimes stacked debt on top of the
companies – as Bain Capital did with AmPad – and then wrote themselves
dividend checks from the borrowings. The Wall Street Journal
calculated Bain made between 50 percent and 80 percent annually on its
investments between 1984 and a few years after Romney left the firm to
run the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
In an analysis of Bain Capital under Romney, the Journal estimated
that Bain made $2.5 billion in profits on $1.1 billion invested in 77
separate deals. Of those 77 transactions, 22 percent ended with the
firms in bankruptcy after the eighth year of the Bain investment. Bain
disputes the Journal’s account as inaccurate."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0119/Is-Mitt-Romney-really-a-job-creator-What-his-Bain-Capital-record-shows/(page)/2
Borrowing money to buy a company and load the debt on the company is
the "vulture capitalism" Rick Perry used to describe Romney. Sounds
pretty accurate to me.
. . .
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
. . .
Bob Wilson
> Bob Wilson <bwilson4...@gmail.com> wrote
>
. . .
>
> I’m genuinely curious to know the link between the two that you see.
Romney calls himself a business man much like the typical Ayn Rand
> I’m genuinely curious to know the link between the two that you see.
hero.
>
> : but later I heard someone point out
> : that there are three wings of the Republican party in these
> : candidates:
> :
> : 1) Mitt - the 'industrialists' who exploited a new 'un-industrialism'
>
> What is un-industrialism?
went on a dog-eat-dog scramble to buy companies. These pin-striped new
owners sometimes squeezed workers in a bid to make the acquired
company more profitable. They sometimes stacked debt on top of the
companies – as Bain Capital did with AmPad – and then wrote themselves
dividend checks from the borrowings. The Wall Street Journal
calculated Bain made between 50 percent and 80 percent annually on its
investments between 1984 and a few years after Romney left the firm to
run the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
In an analysis of Bain Capital under Romney, the Journal estimated
that Bain made $2.5 billion in profits on $1.1 billion invested in 77
separate deals. Of those 77 transactions, 22 percent ended with the
firms in bankruptcy after the eighth year of the Bain investment. Bain
disputes the Journal’s account as inaccurate."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0119/Is-Mitt-Romney-really-a-job-creator-What-his-Bain-Capital-record-shows/(page)/2
Borrowing money to buy a company and load the debt on the company is
the "vulture capitalism" Rick Perry used to describe Romney. Sounds
pretty accurate to me.
. . .
> : 3) Newt/Ron - Dixiecrats in sheeple skin
>
> A good number of Democrats see it differently
We are Democrats which is why Will Rogers once said,
>
> A good number of Democrats see it differently
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
. . .
>
> I’m rooting for the side of peace and prosperity, which means I can’t
> join you in rooting for Obama or for any of the other status quo
> candidates who will continue making war both abroad and here at home.
It is a question of choosing the least bad of what is available.
> I’m rooting for the side of peace and prosperity, which means I can’t
> join you in rooting for Obama or for any of the other status quo
> candidates who will continue making war both abroad and here at home.
Bob Wilson
bwilson4web
Feb 23, 2012, 4:01:32 AM2/23/12
to
On Feb 22, 2:07 pm, Ron Hammon <rgham...@bellsouth.nyet> wrote:
. . .
intent to implement their doctrine: ending birth control, ending
prenatal testing, and policing bedrooms. In contrast, I understand
John Kennedy had a relaxed attitude and stated his religion would not
dictate his decisions. Santorum pretty much claims the opposite.
> 3. How in the WORLD can one, honestly, lump Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich
> together?! That is, unless one is stupid enough to lump all Southerners
> together, despite unsurmountable political differences.
Even you might observe they are Southern and make Jim Crow-like
claims. Newt with his "janitor" jobs and Ron with is opposition to
Civil Rights. Of course I understand some folks enjoy such attitudes
and statements. Heck, I attended a George Wallace rally in OKC once
and the cheers were real and heartfelt by some.
> Let's see. You're listening to the political insights of Protestant
> Yankee rednecks?! That's just weird. OH! I forgot. You're just
> listening to Republican candidate bashing. That makes more sense.
I'm am enjoying the show . . . like the Iraq-Iran war . . . rooting
for both sides or in this case, all three.
Bob Wilson
. . .
>
> 2. Didn't I hear this anti-Catholic BS back when John F. Kennedy ran?
> When did you start hanging out with the good ol' boys? But, that
> doesn't make since, since "good ol' boys" are exactly the religious
> zealots who are backing Santorum now.
Santorum brags about this Catholicism and makes no bones about his
> 2. Didn't I hear this anti-Catholic BS back when John F. Kennedy ran?
> When did you start hanging out with the good ol' boys? But, that
> doesn't make since, since "good ol' boys" are exactly the religious
> zealots who are backing Santorum now.
intent to implement their doctrine: ending birth control, ending
prenatal testing, and policing bedrooms. In contrast, I understand
John Kennedy had a relaxed attitude and stated his religion would not
dictate his decisions. Santorum pretty much claims the opposite.
> 3. How in the WORLD can one, honestly, lump Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich
> together?! That is, unless one is stupid enough to lump all Southerners
> together, despite unsurmountable political differences.
claims. Newt with his "janitor" jobs and Ron with is opposition to
Civil Rights. Of course I understand some folks enjoy such attitudes
and statements. Heck, I attended a George Wallace rally in OKC once
and the cheers were real and heartfelt by some.
> Let's see. You're listening to the political insights of Protestant
> Yankee rednecks?! That's just weird. OH! I forgot. You're just
> listening to Republican candidate bashing. That makes more sense.
for both sides or in this case, all three.
Bob Wilson
Ron Hammon
Feb 25, 2012, 10:34:40 AM2/25/12
to
bwilson4web wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2:07 pm, Ron Hammon <rgham...@bellsouth.nyet> wrote:
> . . .
snop
>
> On Feb 22, 2:07 pm, Ron Hammon <rgham...@bellsouth.nyet> wrote:
> . . .
> > 3. How in the WORLD can one, honestly, lump Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich
> > together?! That is, unless one is stupid enough to lump all Southerners
> > together, despite unsurmountable political differences.
>
> Even you might observe they are Southern and make Jim Crow-like
> claims. Newt with his "janitor" jobs and Ron with is opposition to
> Civil Rights. Of course I understand some folks enjoy such attitudes
> and statements. Heck, I attended a George Wallace rally in OKC once
> and the cheers were real and heartfelt by some.
Ron Paul's "opposition to civil rights" is merely that the government
has no Constitutional role in promoting one group of Americans. This
isn't a civil rights issue. This is a limited government issue. You
should watch the videos of Paul's black supporters and friends instead
of listening only to Liberal mouthpieces. I point you to the most avid
Ron Paul supporter I know, my Faxcebook friend Karen Cooper.
Also, Wallace was such a great orator that the "heartfelt cheers" you
experienced were ubiquitous. Remember, Wallace was shot immediately
after he started WINNING caucuses for your DEMOCRATIC party! Until he
was shot, he was YOUR man! The vacuum Wallace left behind, in the person
of McGovern, gave Tricky Dick a landslide victory and gave us Watergate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW6ikSCDaRQ
Ron Hammon
bwilson4web
Feb 26, 2012, 9:50:08 AM2/26/12
to
On Feb 25, 9:34 am, Ron Hammon <rgham...@bellsouth.nyet> wrote:
. . .
. . .
> Ron Paul's "opposition to civil rights" is merely that the government
> has no Constitutional role in promoting one group of Americans.
As long as every American in a group is treated as an equal American,
> has no Constitutional role in promoting one group of Americans.
no problem. But we have history of that not being done such as the
Japanese internment in WW-II.
> Also, Wallace was such a great orator that the "heartfelt cheers" you
One of his applause lines was the 'walk out.' I was in the balcony at
the back of the sports arena when George point over to the right and
said 'And there they go . . .' I looked over and didn't really see
anyone walking out. Certainly no signs or anything suggesting a 'walk
out.' In fact, I looked to the other side and about the same number of
folks were walking in the aisles. Since it seemed to always happen at
his rallies, I suspected 'stage-craft.' Who knew that in 1968 thirst,
pee and poop were liberal?
BTW, this morning Rick Santorum was on ABCs "This Week" and he drew
opposition to John Kennedy's stand on keeping religion out of
government. Santorum advocates bringing religion into to politics ...
something every religious zealot agrees with. No separation but in
effect Santorum see the Presidency as his approach to imposing his
Catholic doctrine on the nation . . . even you.
Bob Wilson
0 new messages