Ron Paul, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity in ATLAS SHRUGGED III

[Kekephee]

What




What the fuck




http://www.avclub.com/article/conclusion-atlas-shrugged-trilogy-pulls-out-big-gu-206019

[Argh]

WHO IS JOHN GALT

[Kekephee]

For those who don't know, The Onion is a satirical news site that posts joke articles that aren't true. The AV Club is a website that has the same publisher as The Onion, but posts real articles. This is real. This is apparently not a joke. I googled it for like ten minutes because I thought I must be confused, I must be thinking the AV Club is real but it's actually fake, this has to be a joke, but so far Google has verified this is actually a thing that is seriously happening in the real world in which we live.

[Imslap]

When did Atlas Shrugged 2 come out?

[Kekephee]

We got it in stock in Blockbuster like, maybe December of last year, so probably summer 2013.

[Argh]

We got it in stock in Blockbuster like, maybe December of last year, so probably summer 2013.

Blockbuster still existed last year?

[khanable]

what the fuck is atlas shrugged and why should I care

[Frieza_Prexus]

When did Atlas Shrugged 2 come out?

http://i.imgur.com/I5BL8t4.jpg

[Kekephee]

what the fuck is atlas shrugged and why should I care


Film adaptation of an Ayn Rand novel that all of the craziest right-wing libertarians (Bundy Ranch) point to and say "see this fictional world? That fictional world proves why we shouldn't have to pay taxes!"

[Lune]

what the fuck is atlas shrugged and why should I care

Film adaptation of an Ayn Rand novel that all of the craziest right-wing libertarians (Bundy Ranch) point to and say "see this fictional world? That fictional world proves why we shouldn't have to pay taxes!"

It's a bible for libertarians, republicans, objectivists, and all other temporarily embarrassed millionaires everywhere. If I were locked in a room with a gun and 3 bullets, Ayn Rand, Adolf Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden, I'd shoot Ayn Rand 3 times in the vagina and then me and Hitler would beat her to death while Osama cheered.

Ultimately it's an appeal for neo-fuedalism and the idea that the 'elite minds' carry all the rest of us poor, dirty, lazy, incompetent motherfuckers on their shoulders.

[Kekephee]

It's a bible for libertarians, republicans, objectivists, and all other temporarily embarrassed millionaires everywhere. If I were locked in a room with a gun and 3 bullets, Ayn Rand, Adolf Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden, I'd shoot Ayn Rand 3 times in the vagina and then me and Hitler would beat her to death while Osama cheered.

Ultimately it's an appeal for neo-fuedalism and the idea that the 'elite minds' carry all the rest of us poor, dirty, lazy, incompetent motherfuckers on their shoulders.

hahahahahahahahaha

[Funkutron5000]

I'm pretty sure Rand was on Social Security when she died, too. She should have bootstrapped her way through it so she wasn't such an evil parasite sucking the wealth from those hard working rich folk.

[Kekephee]

I made a facebook post about how blown my mind is by this news and my cousin responded:

Objectivism and libertarianism are *far* superior morally and intellectually to, say, socialism, which has been one of the greatest forces for human misery since the dark ages. Making a trilogy from Atlas Shrugged with Ron Paul is still silly, though.


God it feels bad to have a cousin who's so fucking retarded/insane

[Frieza_Prexus]

I'm pretty sure Rand was on Social Security when she died, too. She should have bootstrapped her way through it so she wasn't such an evil parasite sucking the wealth from those hard working rich folk.

To play Devil's Advocate briefly, there's nothing inherently wrong with taking advantage of services that one has become entitled to. Disagreeing with a policy does not preclude utilization of that policy. Example: if one thinks fire departments are a waste, they can still call the trucks because they have paid their taxes towards them.

That said, yes it was endlessly ironic for her to end that way.

[Kekephee]

To play Devil's Advocate briefly, there's nothing inherently wrong with taking advantage of services that one has become entitled to. Disagreeing with a policy does not preclude utilization of that policy. Example: if one thinks fire departments are a waste, they can still call the trucks because they have paid their taxes towards them.

That said, yes it was endlessly ironic for her to end that way.

It's one thing to disagree with it. It's another to build your career publishing fiction and non-fiction expressly with the purpose of arguing against it, convincing millions of people that it's bad, and then cheerfully take it when the time comes.

[Frieza_Prexus]

It's one thing to disagree with it. It's another to build your career publishing fiction and non-fiction expressly with the purpose of arguing against it, convincing millions of people that it's bad, and then cheerfully take it when the time comes.

To an extent. Extremely ironic, but she was forced to contribute to these services, and thus entitled to use them to the full extent of that entitlement. Yes, she was extreme, and it's an "lol" looking back at the situation, but there's no moral or ethical breach. She got what she paid for essentially. Even if she didn't want to buy it.

[Beethoven]

I find this pretty awesome. The movie is about growing government corruption and regulations to businesses, and the erosion of the free market to unconstitutional federal regulations, which is actually happening today. To try and deny that many of the things she talked about in this book are actually happening today is absurd. But it takes a special kind of stupid to say this book is a bunch of bull when you most likely didn't read it, or even watched the movie, and/or are willingly ignorant of what goes on in American politics today. Keep spewing your party politics and baseless vitriol.

[Lune]

growing government corruption and regulations to businesses, and the erosion of the free market to unconstitutional federal regulations, which is actually happening today. To try and deny that many of the things she talked about in this book are actually happening today is absurd. But it takes a special kind of stupid to say this book is a bunch of bull when you most likely didn't read it, or even watched the movie, and/or are willingly ignorant of what goes on in American politics today. Keep spewing your party politics and baseless vitriol.

I read this book because I had a right leaning/open-minded/ignorant phase in college and this girl I was into was a fucking wacko objectivist. I also read Fountainhead.

You're imagining things. Ever since the Reagan administration we've seen free market policies bolstered, not eroded. The private sector has been doing exceptionally well, while labor has spent the last decade making one concession after another. And much of the government corruption is fueled by business interests, through excessive campaign financing. In the USA you can currently purchase political power, and raising taxes has become a third rail issue.

Among our peers in the world's most developed economies, we have the most right-leaning political system by far. Yet we also consistently under perform in almost every metric for human development and general well-being. You hate the government, and you think everyone poorer than you is a leech. I can only guess how much you make in a year, but what's funny is it's definitely enough for Ayn Rand to classify you as expendable.

[Kekephee]

I find this pretty awesome. The movie is about growing government corruption and regulations to businesses, and the erosion of the free market to unconstitutional federal regulations, which is actually happening today. To try and deny that many of the things she talked about in this book are actually happening today is absurd. But it takes a special kind of stupid to say this book is a bunch of bull when you most likely didn't read it, or even watched the movie, and/or are willingly ignorant of what goes on in American politics today. Keep spewing your party politics and baseless vitriol.


Taxes are tyranny, our freedom to live in the year 1800 where people survived autonomously and without any help from the government on enormous tracts of farm land is being eroded by liberal fascism, and there's a race war coming buy ammo sheeple

PS you say "regulating businesses" like it's a bad thing. Have you thought about how unregulated business has played a huge part in the government corruption that is such a problem in America today?

[Archalen]

I read this book because I had a right leaning/open-minded/ignorant phase in college and this girl I was into was a fucking wacko objectivist. I also read Fountainhead.

You're imagining things. Ever since the Reagan administration we've seen free market policies bolstered, not eroded. The private sector has been doing exceptionally well, while labor has spent the last decade making one concession after another. And much of the government corruption is fueled by business interests, through excessive campaign financing. In the USA you can currently purchase political power, and raising taxes has become a third rail issue.

Among our peers in the world's most developed economies, we have the most right-leaning political system by far. Yet we also consistently under perform in almost every metric for human development and general well-being. You hate the government, and you think everyone poorer than you is a leech. I can only guess how much you make in a year, but what's funny is it's definitely enough for Ayn Rand to classify you as expendable.

Very well written response.

[Bazia]

It's anti-communism literature.

A lot of the opinions here are very exaggerated in my opinion.

Enjoyable read for sure.

[Beethoven]

What we've got here is.... failure, to communicate.... some men you just can't reach...

[Pico]

ive dabbled in drugs, promiscuity including homoeroticism, severe overuse of splenda and libertarianism and the only one i regret is libertarianism

[Beethoven]

Well that certainly says something about you now doesn't it

[Orruar]

...
You're imagining things. Ever since the Reagan administration we've seen free market policies bolstered, not eroded. ...

In what objective sense have we gone towards a free market in the past 30 years? Government spending as a percent of GDP, pages of federal regulations, etc. etc. have all increased significantly over that period. What measure do you use to justify your claim? And don't just point to a single regulation that was repealed without taking into account the thousands that have been added.

[Orruar]

...
PS you say "regulating businesses" like it's a bad thing. Have you thought about how unregulated business has played a huge part in the government corruption that is such a problem in America today?

I'd say the regulated businesses are far more of a threat. The relatively unregulated industries, such as the software industry, pose far less of a problem than the highly regulated banking or health insurance industries.

[Orruar]

In fact, if an industry is completely unregulated, then special interests have no way to really use the power of government to their advantage. Regulatory capture is real and is one of the biggest dangers we face. When you give the government the power to regulate an industry, what you're really doing is allowing the biggest players in that industry the power to destroy their competition with regulation. Why do you think the banking industry is actually become more consolidated, with fewer small banks, since the most recent round of disaster/regulation? This is something you would have understood if you had actually read Atlas Shrugged.

[Kekephee]

I'd say the regulated businesses are far more of a threat. The relatively unregulated industries, such as the software industry, pose far less of a problem than the highly regulated banking or health insurance industries.

I mean... look what the banking and health insurance industries have been doing for the last two decades. Look at the amount of ripping people off they've done. Those are two of the worst examples you could have given imo. These are people who should be in prison but they've lobbied and funded campaigns and greased palms to make all of the shady shit they do legal. Regulation is exactly what these companies don't get enough of. They do whatever they want because they've bought their way into positions where they make the rules so they seem to be under control but aren't.

Let's talk about corporate mergers and aquisitions, monopolies. This "free market" that you claim to want can't possibly exist in a world where eight major corporations have bought everything else that can be produced or serviced, and are slowly buying each other in a process that will eventually conglomerate them into one enormous corporation that owns everything in the country. That's the opposite of a free market. And it's government regulation that can and should stand in the way of that.

[Nihilist_santa]

The recent film adaptations parts I and II are a snooze fest. The production value is decent for the budget but the acting is so flat.

I have to disagree with Lune we don't have anything approaching a free market. We have a central bank basically with the federal reserve which is one of the planks of communism. I would say it is actually closer to a fascist economic system or corporatism similar to Mussolini and his parties ideas though where the govt and big business are working together to screw everyone. Destroying labor and propping up big business. The gov and the big players are all the same people anyways at this point. Sort of a fascism 2.0 where they still pretend to uphold private property and "capitalism" but remove autonomy at every turn.

[Orruar]

I mean... look what the banking and health insurance industries have been doing for the last two decades. Look at the amount of ripping people off they've done. Those are two of the worst examples you could have given imo. These are people who should be in prison but they've lobbied and funded campaigns and greased palms to make all of the shady shit they do legal. Regulation is exactly what these companies don't get enough of. They do whatever they want because they've bought their way into positions where they make the rules so they seem to be under control but aren't.

Let's talk about corporate mergers and aquisitions, monopolies. This "free market" that you claim to want can't possibly exist in a world where eight major corporations have bought everything else that can be produced or serviced, and are slowly buying each other in a process that will eventually conglomerate them into one enormous corporation that owns everything in the country. That's the opposite of a free market. And it's government regulation that can and should stand in the way of that.

Oh, I see, you're chasing the myth of the perfectly formed regulation. You're one of those people who learned in grade school that our politicians all care about us and work hard to craft laws to make life fair, and you believed every word of it. This is going to shock you, but there is no Santa Claus. Politicians are not writing regulations to make things more fair. Even when they have the best intentions, they end up writing laws that big businesses use to screw over their smaller competitors.

As for your monopoly fantasy... Did you ever make it past the 8th grade in your understanding of markets? You do realize that monopolies are enabled by regulations far more often than they are prevented? Exactly how do you suppose a company would maintain a monopoly in a free market if they weren't providing the best service to their customers?

[Kekephee]

Yeah, ok, we're talking about how things should be so you tell me "THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT IS". Of course this is a fucking idealistic conversation, you cunt, we're talking about what things SHOULD be like.


And in all that condescending cuntery in your second point, you seem to have forgotten a very simple thing: The whole point of not wanting one corporation to control everything is, yes, as a matter of fact, they DO NOT have to provide the best service to their customers if they are THE ONLY PEOPLE providing that service. So, yeah, smart guy, if you have one company that is the only company providing the service- that's a monopoly, try to keep up- they have no incentive to care. As an example, in my parents' neighborhood right now there's only one cable company that provides service- the others don't "reach" into where my parents live. Since there's only the one company, get this, they don't give a fuck and their service is garbage. Peoples' options are, "don't have cable" or "have this shitty, extremely overpriced cable."

Try not to be such a raging fucking cunt next time if you want to talk like grownups, I'm done with you now.

[Kekephee]

Wish there was an edit button. Dick move to pull that "you didn't graduate from 8th grade" bullshit when all I wanted was a fun thread about how crazy it is to put Ron Paul in a movie, but I overreacted. That's my bad.


But I am done with debating this shit, I hate talking about politics because people get so lame.

[Wonkie]

Yo Kekephee, they're just gonna shout 'FREE MARKET' at you until the cows come home

Why not kill some gnolls instead? =)

[Orruar]

It's ok, that's the normal reaction when someone who believes in Santa is told there is no Santa. Anger and hatred for the truth being revealed is perfectly normal. My guess is that you'll continue believing in Santa though.

[Argh]

It's ok, that's the normal reaction when someone who believes in Santa is told there is no Santa.
is told there is no Santa.
there is no Santa.
http://www.elle.com/cm/elle/images/3r/Cryinggifs_01_1.gif

[Orruar]

... Of course this is a fucking idealistic conversation, you cunt, we're talking about what things SHOULD be like.
...


So in your ideal world, we have people spending their time/energy as regulators? If we're talking an ideal world where men are angelic enough to write/enforce regulations in a perfectly fair way, then we could expect that world to have business men angelic enough to not need regulations at all. Why waste extra time/resources on regulations in a world of angels? Even your fantasy world makes no sense and is hopelessly inefficient.

[Kekephee]

What part of "if you're not going to read and think instead of just being condescending in addition to wrong I'm not going to talk to you about this" do you not understand?

[Emsee]

Anyone that is stupid enough to base their life around 1 political idea or agenda deserves the slowest most painful death that can be bestowed upon man-kind. Nobody gives a fuck about you. The masses of humanity will always have to suffer.

[Champion_Standing]

Hillary 2016

[Champion_Standing]

http://www.jillstanek.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Hillary-2016.jpg

[radditsu]

Uses kickstarter to fund last movie after first two lose money.


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3982081/


THE IRONY

Ayn Rand pretty awful dawg.

[Orruar]

What part of "if you're not going to read and think instead of just being condescending in addition to wrong I'm not going to talk to you about this" do you not understand?

You make the mistake of thinking what I say is to try and get a conversation out of you. I have no interest in having a 6 year old argue about the existence of Santa Claus with me. Instead my words are meant for those who may still be on the fence about the existence of Santa Claus, or who have never heard there isn't a Santa Claus, and who have an open mind and may be able to understand the truth about the Santa Claus.

[Orruar]

Uses kickstarter to fund last movie after first two lose money.


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3982081/


THE IRONY

Ayn Rand pretty awful dawg.

Exactly how is that ironic? Last I checked, kickstarter was a free market tool and doesn't rely upon coercion or force. It's just another way of peacefully and voluntarily collecting money from those who want your product. That makes it perfectly in line with Rand's philosophy.

[Kekephee]

You make the mistake of thinking what I say is to try and get a conversation out of you. I have no interest in having a 6 year old argue about the existence of Santa Claus with me. Instead my words are meant for those who may still be on the fence about the existence of Santa Claus, or who have never heard there isn't a Santa Claus, and who have an open mind and may be able to understand the truth about the Santa Claus.

Nah. You just want to feel like you "pwned" someone on the internet because you know, somewhere deep down, that you have no ability to think critically, apply concepts, and come up with a novel approach to anything. You are a parrot. You hear someone say something, and you memorize it as a clever little slogan and you spout it. You think I haven't heard every lame insult, every facile point you've made, every empty word you've said here a thousand times from a thousand pathetic intellectual weaklings just like you? You haven't reached any of these conclusions yourself- you've heard them on TV, MAYBE in a couple of books. You're not 100% on how they actually work- your "don't you see that regulations create monopolies??" point is a great indicator of that. You're speaking in oxymorons and contradictions, but you have no idea. Meanwhile, every time you try to rebut something I've said, you demonstrate an absolutely fantastic inability to actually comprehend the thing that was said that you're not limp-wristedly trying to rebut.

Here's the thing: I don't feel like playing your game. I don't feel like allowing you to feel like you've "zinged" me because you repeat the same sad Santa Claus insult and pat yourself on the back for your ability to not really say anything but to feel like you've come out on top.

You talk about open-mindedness, but come on. You have no interest in learning anything here. You never did. And it shows.

[Kekephee]

inb4 "I know you are but what am I lol you're talking about urself", and also out of here

[myriverse]

Exactly how is that ironic? Last I checked, kickstarter was a free market tool and doesn't rely upon coercion or force. It's just another way of peacefully and voluntarily collecting money from those who want your product. That makes it perfectly in line with Rand's philosophy.
Begging should be against Rand's philosophy. That's what Kickstarter is.

[Tiggles]

Begging should be against Rand's philosophy. That's what Kickstarter is.

In that case trying to find an investor for anything would be considered "begging"

Stop being dumb.

[Kekephee]

Begging should be against Rand's philosophy. That's what Kickstarter is.

It could be argued that while begging is against Rand's philosophy, the freedom to give your money to a cause at your own discretion isn't. But, stronger than that is the argument that going on kickstarter and handing someone money in exchange for not only the feeling of superiority and philanthrophy from having done something for someone else, but also neat little prizes and perks increasing in neatness according to how generous you are, is fundamentally objectivist. I'm sure they would say that cancels out the "begging" argument. I'm not inclined to agree.

[Kekephee]

In that case trying to find an investor for anything would be considered "begging"

Stop being dumb.

Not really. Investing is a business deal. You put in money, you get money out. These perks are mostly non-beneficial. If you really want to follow this line of reasoning, you'd be better off saying it's more like selling goods and services, posters and autographs and trips to the studio and such, at extremely overinflated prices with the intention of using the profits to fund the movie (which is ok for Rand) and if people are dumb enough to fall for it, that's cool

[Archalen]

In that case trying to find an investor for anything would be considered "begging"

Stop being dumb.

Confirmed Ron Paul supporter.

[Tiggles]

Confirmed Ron Paul supporter.

Poor Ronny retired, His Kid will now take the mantle of fringe libertarian candidate.

Rand Paul 2016

[Orruar]

Begging should be against Rand's philosophy. That's what Kickstarter is.

Are you familiar with kickstarter? People donate money for specific goals and are often rewarded in various ways for the contribution. If that's what begging means to you, then I guess I was a beggar in my undergrad when my parents were paying my tuition. I was a beggar for the first 18 years of my life when I was being given free housing and food by those same parents.

And if you actually read Rand's work (which I doubt you have, other than secondhand understanding filtered through people who misrepresent parts of her philosophy) then you would know that she was not opposed to charity, which is the best way to describe kickstarter.

"The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance." -Ayn Rand

[Lune]

I love showing the following quote to Orruar because:

1. Alan Greenspan was Ayn Rand's #1 cultist.
2. He refuses to believe both that Greenspan participated in fucking up monetary policy, and that his admission means anything.

I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms ... I discovered a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.

I can only hope we get to witness Orruaur's mental gymnastics as he tries to reconcile reality with his worldview-- something that is impossible when you live in a black and white world and you have a binary mind.

B-b-b-but the free market is the perfect economic paradigm, and any flaw is because somebody tried to regulate something.

I mean, who knows why the borderline socialist mixed economies like Japan, Germany, Austrlia, Sweden, Canada, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, etc etc, do so much better than us? Shouldn't all their shit be fucked up? They are happier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report), longer-lived (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy), more educated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index), less impoverished (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_poverty), and just generally superior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI) in nearly every way you can measure a country's performance, including public debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt).

Those statistics don't match my worldview, they most be 100% wrong!

[Orruar]

Greenspan absolutely fucked up as fed chairman. When have I ever stated otherwise? You are making things up to make yourself feel superior. Seriously, I invite you to find the place where I ever said Greenspan was even a "good" fed chairman, let alone completely devoid of fuckups. If you want to concoct lies to argue against, I can do that to.

I love showing the following to Lune because:
1. He claims that soviet-style communism is the path to ultimate freedom and happiness
2. He claims that the soviet union was a utopia that only came crashing down because of the wickedness of the west
3. He claims that all of the claims of mass murder in the USSR are simply western propaganda meant to enrich the capitalist tycoons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

How can anyone take him seriously when he thinks the USSR actually landed a man on the moon first, led the world in curing diseases, and actually destroyed the US economically in the 1980s leading to the collapse of the US in 1989 and forcing the west to tear down the Berlin wall in shame? He clearly has a warped view of history.

[Champion_Standing]

Lune why don't you lecture us on how the unwashed masses have caused all the worlds problems and the elite just don't have enough power to fix all those problems. If only they could do MORE.

rofl

[Champion_Standing]

If only the most dangerous and murderous institutions in human history had more power, we would all be so much better off!

[Lune]

Seriously, I invite you to find the place where I ever said Greenspan was even a "good" fed chairman, let alone completely devoid of fuckups. If you want to concoct lies to argue against, I can do that to.

Why would I try to find that kind of evidence? I'm not claiming you liked Alan Greenspan, only that you engage in abortions of logic to try and reconcile his words and legacy with your 'reality'. You're trying to move the goalposts and make it seem like I'm assailing your positive opinion of Greenspan. I'm not.

Implying, essentially, "Nu-Uh! Greenspan is lying!":

Also, it's probably not best to listen to Alan Greenspan's account of what happened. Do you think the police give much weight to the story of a bank robber after catching him red handed? Greenspan has every reason in the world to lie and deflect.

You have to live with the fact that an objectivist shit the bed so bad on monetary policy that they had to throw out the sheets.

Really. I invite you to explain how you reconcile Greenspan legacy with your worldview, and address the main point of my previous post about the success of mixed economies elsewhere in the world, instead of chimping out and equivocating.

[cs616]

And in all that condescending cuntery in your second point...


But I am done with debating this shit, I hate talking about politics because people get so lame.

You realize you made a series of condescendingly cunty post attacking a political ideology and then accused people defending that ideology of doing the same, correct? If you want to have civil conversations about politics, don't start them out by making quips about the other side.

[Orruar]

I mean, who knows why the borderline socialist mixed economies like Japan, Germany, Austrlia, Sweden, Canada, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, etc etc, do so much better than us? Shouldn't all their shit be fucked up? They are happier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report), longer-lived (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy), more educated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index), less impoverished (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_poverty), and just generally superior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI) in nearly every way you can measure a country's performance, including public debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt).

Those statistics don't match my worldview, they most be 100% wrong!

(TL;DR): He didn't look at these stats before posting them. None of them really support anything he's saying and he was hoping nobody would actually look at the links he posted. This indicates he is the kind of lazy person that wouldn't click on links of data others post.

Are those really the stats you want to use to justify your position? Let's knock them off 1 at a time:

Happiness - Are you seriously going to use this as a measure of success? People report being more "happy", which isn't exactly a highly scientific term that leaves no room for interpretation or cultural differences. Hell, they can't even ask the exact same question to everyone since there are subtle language differences that could affect how people interpret the question. Poor showing, but I'll give you a C- on this one as it's really your strongest data and I don't want you to be completely disheartened.

Longer-lived - This has far more to do with genetics and culture than it does with political institutions. And I invite you to take a look at the US life expectancy by race. You'll see that asian americans are living much longer than their relatives living in the old country. You'll see hispanic americans living 5-10 years longer than those in Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, etc. And African Americans are living decades longer than their brothers still living in Africa. But you see, when you throw everyone into the same group (Americans) and take an average, it's clearly going to be lower than countries who have all white/asian populations, due simply to genetics.

Education Index - You do realize that this index is only based on the years of schooling, and not on quality of schooling, right? I'm not saying the US would be better off if quality was taken into consideration (our schools are pretty atrocious), but the index you linked is not terribly useful unless you're interested purely in how many years we're able to keep people in school. I mean, Kenya is #1 on this list. Was that not a clue to you that it might not be the best indicator of educational success? Also, of the countries you listed, the US is right in the middle. So even if you had assumed that this list was legit, why would you claim the US is doing terrible compared to the countries you listed? Did you even look at this before you posted, or were in such a rush to feel superior that you didn't think it mattered if the data you linked supported your argument or undermined it?

Poverty index - Do you realize that this index allows each country to define poverty however they want to and then compares the poverty rate of these different scales? It's comparing apples and oranges. I mean, look at Malaysia. It has 1/4 the povery we do even though their GDP per capita is 40% of ours. This quote comes directly from your link:

"Definitions of the poverty line do vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations. Even among rich nations, the standards differ greatly. Thus, the numbers are not comparable among countries. Even when nations do use the same method, some issues may remain."

So nice job undermining your argument once again. If you really wanted to compare economic well being, GDP per capita would seem to be the best measure. And on that front, the US beats each of the 8 countries you mentioned.

Human Development Index (and IHDI) - The US is still #3 in HDI (only Australia and Norway ahead of us, 7 of the 8 countries you mentioned are below us). The US falls behind all those countries in the IHDI. So overall it's a wash, with Australia apparently beating us in both cases.

Debt - 5/8 countries you listed have more public debt as a % of GDP. So what exactly was your point with that one?

Summary: Do you look at data or are you one of those people who think if you can link to a bunch of data, you've somehow won an argument, regardless of whether the data supports your undermines your argument?

[Orruar]

...
You have to live with the fact that an objectivist shit the bed so bad on monetary policy that they had to throw out the sheets.

Really. I invite you to explain how you reconcile Greenspan legacy with your worldview, and address the main point of my previous post about the success of mixed economies elsewhere in the world, instead of chimping out and equivocating.

I see. So you think Greenspan's objectivist philosophy is what drove him to screw things up horribly. In fact, his abandonment of that philosophy is what made him make his worst mistakes. It's when he abandoned a more hands-off approach and took actions such as the Greenspan Put that he really fucked things up.

And I'd say he had abandoned free-market principles the moment he took a job as the head central banker. I mean, what would you say about a devout communist who doesn't believe in property rights at all who takes over as the CEO of Wal Mart? Let's say they went on to screw over his employees and take actions completely contrary to the communist principles? Would you then blame the communists for being anti-labor?

You are making the classic mistakes of conflating an ideology with a person here. For some reason you think Greenspan was the perfect personification of Ayn Rand's philosophy. It's taking the appeal to authority fallacy to the extreme.

[Kekephee]

You realize you made a series of condescendingly cunty post attacking a political ideology and then accused people defending that ideology of doing the same, correct? If you want to have civil conversations about politics, don't start them out by making quips about the other side.

Not really. Maybe my "buy ammo sheeple" post could be interpreted as being a little snarky, though I meant it in fun, but the whole "cunt" post was in response to him coming at me with both barrels.

[Nuggie]

Orr, I do hope you are blowing this thread up in hopes of winning over those low information people. Because if not you are mired in a bog of eternally fruitless frustration. The left leaners are not going to see eye to eye with the right.

Anyone looking at those numbers should first read and understand the book "How to lie with statistics." Its very short and to the point. The basic idea is that you can't believe the numbers the vast majority of people throw out because they are generally comparing apples to oranges. Or they are only looking at part of the picture.

[Orruar]

In what objective sense have we gone towards a free market in the past 30 years? Government spending as a percent of GDP, pages of federal regulations, etc. etc. have all increased significantly over that period. What measure do you use to justify your claim? And don't just point to a single regulation that was repealed without taking into account the thousands that have been added.

Lune - You never responded to this question. And given your recent love affair with statistics, surely you have some kind of objective measure for determining that we have gone towards a free market in the past few decades? Show me the data you're using for this. Put up or shut up.

[fadetree]

Ayn had her point. Took it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too far, but its a mistake to totally ignore her. Very little in life is completely true or completely false. Socialism has its points too.

The thing that Ayn had to say that I most agreed with is that it is a form of enslavement to institutionally give things to people who didn't earn them. Liberal white folks dealing perpetual welfare checks have done more to destroy urban culture than anything else. It's a win-win for the establishment, not only do you get to look like you're a good guy by 'helping', you also get their votes. Sweet.

[Lune]

Those statistics don't match my worldview, they most be 100% wrong!

So what you're saying is, the USA isn't being outperformed because you take objection to some of the ways the data is assembled and interpreted?

Or you acknowledge that we are being outperformed and instead just wanted to focus on the ways you think the data is imperfect?

You're not 'knocking them off', you're just obfuscating things.

B-b-b-but the free market is the perfect economic paradigm, and any flaw is because somebody tried to regulate something.

He literally admits he "presumed the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms". Those sound like objectivist principles to me; he is explicitly lamenting his hands off approach. Who knows, maybe had he not been a Randroid, he'd have stepped in, seen where the Greenspan Put was headed, and abrogated the behavior. You're trying to isolate him from any shred of his ideology when a great deal of what he believed ended up influencing policy.

Lune - You never responded to this question. And given your recent love affair with statistics, surely you have some kind of objective measure for determining that we have gone towards a free market in the past few decades? Show me the data you're using for this. Put up or shut up.

Move the goalposts all you want, I addressed all of these in that other thread. When you summarily refuse to accept any kind of evidence for increasingly asinine reasons, I don't feel obligated to provide it for you. You wouldn't even take Greenspan's personal congressional testimony citing the errors of the deregulation that occurred under his tenure as a piece of evidence suggesting deregulation. Good grief.

Tax income has declined, government spending declined until Obama took office, the bargaining power of labor has taken a nose-dive, and private sector profits have skyrocketed. Now our politics are being controlled by private sector money. Sure sounds to me like the government has reduced its control over businesses, right?

But no, you're going to focus on dumb shit like the nominal # of regulatory pages compared to 1930, in spite of our population tripling, a radical reformation of our way of life, and the fact that something intended to have the net effect of deregulation may nonetheless be written in legislature as a law.

[Ahldagor]

you idiots arguing and not bringing up the slow move towards fascism the country is undergoing.

http://forgottenhistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/untitled-21.jpg

rand was part of the beginning. the objectivist mindset is like that of the futurist. they're only separated by an ocean. in order to get the people on your side you have to convince them that they're smart enough to think on their own while championing what you've taught them. gov policy has been reverting to the guilded age since reagan masqueraded as the healer of nixon. so who's the mckinley to get shot while the second teddy roosevelt waits?

[Nuggie]

Ayn had her point. Took it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too far, but its a mistake to totally ignore her. Very little in life is completely true or completely false. Socialism has its points too.

The thing that Ayn had to say that I most agreed with is that it is a form of enslavement to institutionally give things to people who didn't earn them. Liberal white folks dealing perpetual welfare checks have done more to destroy urban culture than anything else. It's a win-win for the establishment, not only do you get to look like you're a good guy by 'helping', you also get their votes. Sweet.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Same ideology applies to welfare.

[Orruar]

Lies, lies, and more lies.

Seriously, nobody is going to read your posts (as if anyone did already) if you just continue to lie nonstop.

You posted several sets of data to try and support your argument and then get upset when I show that for the most part, the data was saying exactly the opposite of what you were claiming. Nobody is going to believe a word you say from here on, unless they've already made up their minds on the issue. So yes, in your echo chamber of left wing ideology, you're still the king. But nobody else give 2 shits about someone who can't take the time to look at their own data before posting and claiming it says the opposite of what it does.

[Lune]

Ayn had her point. Took it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too far, but its a mistake to totally ignore her. Very little in life is completely true or completely false. Socialism has its points too.

The thing that Ayn had to say that I most agreed with is that it is a form of enslavement to institutionally give things to people who didn't earn them. Liberal white folks dealing perpetual welfare checks have done more to destroy urban culture than anything else. It's a win-win for the establishment, not only do you get to look like you're a good guy by 'helping', you also get their votes. Sweet.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Same ideology applies to welfare.

Believe it or not, welfare is not an exclusively liberal thing. Read up on agricultural subsidies and farm bills, it's a very right-wing thing. We pay $20 billion a year to farmers to help them get by. Additionally, things like medicare are bipartisan enterprises. Why don't those lazy fucking geezers get a job?

[Kekephee]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Same ideology applies to welfare.

One's ability to fish isn't directly influenced by the fact that one was born in a poverty-stricken neighborhood with a lot of crime and a terrible school system. It's real easy to say "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" when you didn't have to drop out of school to sell crack on the corner when you were 13 to help your family because your dad can't get a job because he dropped out of school to sell crack when he was 13. Which is obviously a wild example that isn't going to be "the story" for the majority of welfare recipients, and I would never claim it as such, but it is a reality that more people face every year than I, personally, am comfortable with.

[Ahldagor]

Seriously, nobody is going to read your posts (as if anyone did already) if you just continue to lie nonstop.

You posted several sets of data to try and support your argument and then get upset when I show that for the most part, the data was saying exactly the opposite of what you were claiming. Nobody is going to believe a word you say from here on, unless they've already made up their minds on the issue. So yes, in your echo chamber of left wing ideology, you're still the king. But nobody else give 2 shits about someone who can't take the time to look at their own data before posting and claiming it says the opposite of what it does.

your rhetoric is bullshit. you shit post worse than

http://i.imgur.com/h7DABj9.gif

[Lune]

lol, you're gonna get banned again

[Ahldagor]

this is nsfw right?

[Ahldagor]

http://media.giphy.com/media/KYNywoibU1PQ4/giphy.gif

[Yumyums Inmahtumtums]

FFs man I used to like you

[mtb tripper]

im so afraid

[Ahldagor]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nDuHbAhWZ_U/USJagCZGRVI/AAAAAAAAoGo/spXkJqzpHQY/s640/hey-beetlejuice-doris-joker-funny-demotivational-poster-1231432214.jpg

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

The fact that hucksters like Beck, Paul, and Hannity are millionaires that some people take very seriously, and that anyone thinks Ayn Rand was a political and economic visionary, just proves that PT Barnum grossly underestimated the spawn rate of suckers.

[mtb tripper]

ive dabbled in drugs, promiscuity including homoeroticism, severe overuse of splenda and libertarianism and the only one i regret is libertarianism

nice

[Gaffin 7.0]

***THIS JUST IN***








































pity reply

[radditsu]

NFL NBA MLB


Our national pass times are socialist organizations.

[Orruar]

NFL NBA MLB


Our national pass times are socialist organizations.

Since when do any of those organizations require membership by all people within a geographical region? You're missing something critical if you think it's fair to compare a voluntary association to a political philosophy.

[myriverse]

Since when do any of those organizations require membership by all people within a geographical region?
Socialism does not require this.

[radditsu]

MY MURICA FOOTBALL AINT NO RUSKIE SOVIET SHIT. HOW DARE YOU! HOLD MUAH BEER

[harnold]

Radditsu looking like a dumb fuck like usual lol

[radditsu]

Radditsu looking like a dumb fuck like usual lol

From you thats great praise. ***** you so dum everything you say wraps around to a compliment.

[harnold]

I rest my case

[Orruar]

Socialism does not require this.

Well socialism is almost exclusively talked about as a social/economic/political system that applies to all people in a given country. You can't opt out of the taxes/benefits if you live within the geographical area. You can opt out of paying for sports teams, unless your city also taxes you to pay for stadiums, which is a shameful use of taxpayer funds, but that is beside the point. You won't find a national system of voluntary socialism talked about, because it's difficult to keep a system like that going unless you have the threat of force there to expropriate from the rich.

[Orruar]

MY MURICA FOOTBALL AINT NO RUSKIE SOVIET SHIT. HOW DARE YOU! HOLD MUAH BEER

Radditsu looking like a dumb fuck like usual lol

I dislike sports, particularly the ones you listed. But way to jump to conclusions and make yourself look stupid.

[radditsu]

I dislike sports, particularly the ones you listed. But way to jump to conclusions and make yourself look stupid.

There is a difference in trying to be funny on a dumbass rnf forum and making myself stupid. Do I believe in socialism, No fuck no. But the Nfl by definition redistributes wealth from large market teams to smaller ones. If it were a capitaist organization, the Cowboys Giants Jets and Patriots would have all the money. There would be no salary cap or draft. Everyone would be paid what they are worth. It intentionally keeps labor cost low through collusion


In the NBA LeBron James would be making 60 million a year.


But seriously you fucks. I do not want to use my fucking brain talking about the tenants of socialism on a shitty emulator.

[Orruar]

There is just as much of a difference between voluntary "socialist" organizations and socialism than there is between socialism and capitalism. In fact, voluntary "socialist" groups are not in conflict with the ideas of a free market. Every single family is run as a socialist entity. Those who can earn money (parents) redistribute it to those who can't (children). So in light of all of this, what was your point in the first place?

[HeallunRumblebelly]

There is just as much of a difference between voluntary "socialist" organizations and socialism than there is between socialism and capitalism. In fact, voluntary "socialist" groups are not in conflict with the ideas of a free market. Every single family is run as a socialist entity. Those who can earn money (parents) redistribute it to those who can't (children). So in light of all of this, what was your point in the first place?

Unless you see your children as investment vehicles. Which has been the case throughout the majority of history :p

[radditsu]

There is just as much of a difference between voluntary "socialist" organizations and socialism than there is between socialism and capitalism. In fact, voluntary "socialist" groups are not in conflict with the ideas of a free market. Every single family is run as a socialist entity. Those who can earn money (parents) redistribute it to those who can't (children). So in light of all of this, what was your point in the first place?



I am pointing out the ignorance that most people think when they think "socialism". And that the system is viable when there are no corruption involved.

Capitialism works great in a microeconomy. But requires heavy regulation in a global /our economy due to the simple fact that as corporations get bigger they get less human. When ideology works against the betterment of mankind, in any instance, that is just a bummer to me.


I feel local government is 100% better served by a "right wing" ideology. They do not have the capacity to effect any real changes in social progress. Which is my 100% problem with right wing organizations. But they are fiscally conservative in the approach to growth of a community.


Clear?

[Orruar]

Unless you see your children as investment vehicles. Which has been the case throughout the majority of history :p

Maybe in the past when everyone was a farmer. But in today's society, having/raising children is the most economically disastrous move a young couple can make. It's not about investment.

[Nuggie]

I feel local government is 100% better served by a "right wing" ideology. They do not have the capacity to effect any real changes in social progress. Which is my 100% problem with right wing organizations. But they are fiscally conservative in the approach to growth of a community.


Clear?

I like when what you post makes sense.

[radditsu]

Yeah but you wont like the fact I think federal govt should be as liberal as hell. Social programs. Food safety. Defense spending 5x that of any country besides 100x.
And the curbing of anti human practices by global or national corporations.


Healthcare and social entitlements dawg.

[Orruar]

I'm the opposite. I think the national government should be very minimal and allow cities/towns/communes/etc. to go as socialist as they want. Then people can decide which suits them best and go there. The good practices that lead to the most healthy society will spread and the bad ones will wither and die. Think of it as Darwinism for political ideas.

[JayN]

I'm the opposite. I think the national government should be very minimal and allow cities/towns/communes/etc. to go as socialist as they want. Then people can decide which suits them best and go there. The good practices that lead to the most healthy society will spread and the bad ones will wither and die. Think of it as Darwinism for political ideas.

this already happening, why everyone flocks to the coasts while middle america becomes more ass backwards and polarized by the day

[DeruIsLove]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Same ideology applies to welfare.

The river dried up dawg.

[Nuggie]

this already happening, why everyone flocks to the coasts while middle america becomes more ass backwards and polarized by the day

Yea, because people are leaving arizona/texas/nevada to move to California. Oh, no wait. It's the exact opposite. Keep your failure liberal monetary policies in the blue states where they belong. Look at how Detroit has been destroyed by those same policies.

[Gaffin 7.0]

everyone from fl moves to cali imagine that

[Nuggie]

Yeah but you wont like the fact I think federal govt should be as liberal as hell. Social programs. Food safety. Defense spending 5x that of any country besides 100x.
And the curbing of anti human practices by global or national corporations.


Healthcare and social entitlements dawg.

Why do you think these things can't be administered at the local level, where they will have the most amount of individual oversight?

[Beethoven]

Red commie liberal pinko bastards!

[DeruIsLove]

Why do you think these things can't be administered at the local level, where they will have the most amount of individual oversight?

You have absolutely no idea how much of a logistical nightmare it world be to insure the local governments don't squander said funds.

[Lune]

Yea, because people are leaving arizona/texas/nevada to move to California. Oh, no wait. It's the exact opposite. Keep your failure liberal monetary policies in the blue states where they belong. Look at how Detroit has been destroyed by those same policies.

They are going to be in for a surprise in 10-20 years when Texas turns into a blue state because of all the Hispanics.

Also, you could make the same stupid statement about Delaware.

More than 50% of all U.S. publicly traded companies and 63% of the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware. It must be because of liberal Delaware's amazing monetary policies! No, it's because of a gimmick system designed to exploit the way taxation works in the United States, just like Texas is trying to do.

It really has more to do with people being priced out of desirable areas in California because of the excessive cost of living, ie, everyone wants to live there, there are high paying jobs, and not enough room. California (http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends.jsp) has several favorable job markets (http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/unemployment).

[Pico]

ive met a single libertarian in the real world. just one. i did not want to be around him but because of some mutual friends i had to interact with this tub a couple times. guy was a 30 year old virgin, who literally wept at a party because a girl rightfully rejected his sweaty sexual advances. last i heard he had just been successfully sued for libel over the internet to the tune of 80 grand and was considering suicide


lol

[Orruar]

this already happening, why everyone flocks to the coasts while middle america becomes more ass backwards and polarized by the day

That's not really happening... And we don't really have a system like the one I outlined anyway. Our fedgov spends more than all state and local governments combined. That means there is not as much difference from one state to the next as there could be. Essentially we have greatly restricted the possible social experiments that can take place.

[radditsu]

Why do you think these things can't be administered at the local level, where they will have the most amount of individual oversight?


One thing. Leverage. A large strong govt can do more against and have more oversight over the larger more....dubious organizations out there with its antitrust law and national viewpoint.

[Nihilist_santa]

That's not really happening... And we don't really have a system like the one I outlined anyway. Our fedgov spends more than all state and local governments combined. That means there is not as much difference from one state to the next as there could be. Essentially we have greatly restricted the possible social experiments that can take place.

This is correct. The fed gov routinely withholds monies from any states that don't go along with the federal mandates etc. Not much room for a republic these days. People still think the civil war was fought over slavery. Ahh revisionist history.

[Nihilist_santa]

One thing. Leverage. A large strong govt can do more against and have more oversight over the larger more....dubious organizations out there with its antitrust law and national viewpoint.

The problem with that the nature of government is to collect for its self as much power as possible. You get this big fed regulatory body and it eventually becomes corrupt and all it does is keep down competition and enforces monopolies for its big donors. Look at all of the "Czar" appointments and you can see where this is going. Like I said before this is nothing but corporatism where the gov is only protecting the interest of big corps. They work together to collect as much power as they can.

Decentralization is the answer. More checks and balances. People never question why they changed the way in which reps are chosen by population and such. We should have many more reps than we do now which would make it even harder to buy off people and consolidate into voting blocs.

[Nuggie]

They are going to be in for a surprise in 10-20 years when Texas turns into a blue state because of all the Hispanics.

I don't doubt this at all. Although it greatly depends on how the GOP can court the Hispanic vote

Also, you could make the same stupid statement about Delaware.

You're putting words in my mouth. I dont think it's stupid, but you're entitled to your opinion.

More than 50% of all U.S. publicly traded companies and 63% of the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware. It must be because of liberal Delaware's amazing monetary policies! No, it's because of a gimmick system designed to exploit the way taxation works in the United States, just like Texas is trying to do.

Hah, correct me if I'm wrong here. The way that tax system loophole works is most of those companies have their "corporate" office there. Manned by a secretary or something to qualify them for the tax savings. Then the rest of the company is where ever it's cheapest to manufacture their goods(or whatever their product is). This really isn't a strong argument to support liberal policies. This is going to change very soon, I believe, because one of our "territories" is offering a better deal. I just got off a 16 hour shift and don't recall which one at the moment. I read about it a few months ago.

It really has more to do with people being priced out of desirable areas in California because of the excessive cost of living, ie, everyone wants to live there, there are high paying jobs, and not enough room. California (http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends.jsp) has several favorable job markets (http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/unemployment).

Hah, and it has nothing to do with cali's huge state debt(over 400 billion) (http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html), ridiculously high taxes(12.5% for top earners, combined with the top federal income tax rate of 39.6% for 52.1%. They don't even get to keep half of what they gross) (http://www.tax-brackets.org/californiataxtable), or crime rate(nearly 3 times the national median of crimes per square mile (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/crime/)?

Same thing happened to Detroit in the 70's. The local democrats that were elected to office raised taxes on the rich and middle class. So they moved out of Detroit. Same thing is happening in Cali. It's amazing how much money was thrown at the Detroit experiment trying to make it work. Yet it failed, miserably. A once proud city is an empty shell of its former glory. I'm sure you've heard they are selling single family homes for $1000 in some areas. As well as trying to completely demolish others(neighborhoods, not just single houses).

You can keep those liberal policies you seem to argue for so fervently. I'll keep my money, guns, and freedoms. Stay out of Nevada!

[JayN]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/06/08/two-officers-one-bystander-killed-nevada-wal-mart-shooting/4BJy2ubrZsgHzG8yTR5IUL/story.html

mmm Nevada fuck that place, keep your guns redneck your going to need em

[Nuggie]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/06/08/two-officers-one-bystander-killed-nevada-wal-mart-shooting/4BJy2ubrZsgHzG8yTR5IUL/story.html

mmm Nevada fuck that place, keep your guns redneck your going to need em

It's an acquired taste, for sure. I'm a redneck, guilty as charged.

[Glenzig]

Its amazing how united a democratic nation like America is.

[Nuggie]

Glenzig, you're still on ignore.

[Glenzig]

Glenzig, you're still on ignore.

Ok.

[Ahldagor]

orruar still posting shit rhetoric, amateur nihilism santa still spouting "everything fails eventually" (what do you do when you don't kill yourself?), radditsu making more sense than anyone, lune out arguing everyone, glenzing doing what they do...yup it's a politics thread.

The fact that hucksters like Beck, Paul, and Hannity are millionaires that some people take very seriously, and that anyone thinks Ayn Rand was a political and economic visionary, just proves that PT Barnum grossly underestimated the spawn rate of suckers.

[Nihilist_santa]

orruar still posting shit rhetoric, amateur nihilism santa still spouting "everything fails eventually" (what do you do when you don't kill yourself?), radditsu making more sense than anyone, lune out arguing everyone, glenzing doing what they do...yup it's a politics thread.

You are clearly confused about the distinctions between existential nihilism and political nihilism.

[Nihilist_santa]

I should clarify that I am neither just find funny your "interpretation" of things.

[Ahldagor]

You are clearly confused about the distinctions between existential nihilism and political nihilism.

do expound o wise one of ex nihilo nihil fit. don't make an ass of me and you.

[Orruar]

orruar still posting shit rhetoric, amateur nihilism santa still spouting "everything fails eventually" (what do you do when you don't kill yourself?), radditsu making more sense than anyone, lune out arguing everyone, glenzing doing what they do...yup it's a politics thread.

1) Who is "amateur nihilism santa"? That's a pretty awesome title.

2) I suspect that based on your obvious anger over an internet discussion, the underlined part is more projection on your part.

[Ahldagor]

I should clarify that I am neither just find funny your "interpretation" of things.

gotta see the whole board of the word's definitions bruh. i'm no prince hamlet nor was meant to be, so the biggest consistency of any politics thread is people arguing a global issue in the immediate, short sighted view of their locality as being the tao which is nothing more than painting a monoculture (literally one of the scariest, worst things ever conceived in the ego based education that has been western education the past couple hundred years) over an already fractured, bleeding canvas. we're still primates trying to survive in a jungle, we just have different tools now.

1) Who is "amateur nihilism santa"? That's a pretty awesome title.

2) I suspect that based on your obvious anger over an internet discussion, the underlined part is more projection on your part.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-A6aUSWflSKc/UfcbNlOiQRI/AAAAAAAAKQA/a_mZXpD7KPE/s1600/spiderman-that-post-gave-me-cancer.jpg

[radditsu]

I make more sense than anyone. Im officially done with the thread. I win

[p99soundsok]

You can keep those liberal policies you seem to argue for so fervently. I'll keep my money, guns, and freedoms. Stay out of Nevada!


lol two-party system sheeples

[Heebo]

I'd rather have my politicians pretending to be actors than actors pretending to be politicians tbh.

[Heebo]

And if you didn't know Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity were actors to begin with I dunno what to say.

[p99soundsok]

I'd rather have my politicians pretending to be actors than actors pretending to be politicians tbh.

And if you didn't know Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity were actors to begin with I dunno what to say.

who are you responding to? are you high?

[Heebo]

who are you responding to? are you high?

If you think I'm gonna read anything past the title of a thread like this you're mistaken.

[Kekephee]

And if you didn't know Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity were actors to begin with I dunno what to say.


All fair points.

[Nuggie]

Heebo, you taking a stab at Reagan or Schwarzenegger?