Covering Coverage

[At Home 0]

Good God almighty not Michelle Malkin again.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

 

lol

[At Home 0]

Oh by the way, the whole Ayn Rand libertarian thing is based upon the debate over free will, not the political stance. So yes, she is a libertarian inasmuch as Sartre was a libertarian.

[ZGangsta 0]

ZOMG!!!~ The US is becoming socialist and that's an ATTACK ON GOD!!!

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

That's one of the worst things I've ever read. Not coincidentally, the first thing I've ever read by him.

[Big Green 0]

ZOMG!!!~ The US is becoming socialist and that's an ATTACK ON GOD!!!

 

Do these wackjob Conservatives even read the Bible? The Bible ADVOCATES the sharing of wealth, for crying out loud.

 

Some quotes:

 

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (NIV, Matthew 6:24-25, 31-33)

 

Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle. (NIV, Proverbs 23:4-5)

 

If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? (NIV, 1 John 3:17)

 

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (NIV, 1 Timothy 6:17-19)

 

----

 

Seriously, does ANYONE in the Republican Party actually own a Bible? God's views on the economy are pretty damn liberal.

[Guest Czech please!]

Okay, but then John 3:17 is more precisely advocating the individual virtue of charity, rather than the state model of social democracy; and I'm not really sure if God has "views on the economy," anyway. The verse from Proverbs says not to lose sight of everything in your life in the pursuit of money, which is perfectly reasonable. Forsaking food and clothing for God-cred, though?

[Big Green 0]

Okay, but then John 3:17 is more precisely advocating the individual virtue of charity, rather than the state model of social democracy; and I'm not really sure if God has "views on the economy," anyway. The verse from Proverbs says not to lose sight of everything in your life in the pursuit of money, which is perfectly reasonable. Forsaking food and clothing for God-cred, though?

 

But you can't really argue that God would endorse capitalism in the way that the Republican Party wants it. My point in putting those out there was to show that going towards socialism would be closer to God's will since socialism is more closely aligned with the idea of helping others by pooling together resources as opposed to rewarding greed and excess like the conservative economic model does. I mean, if you're going to argue that God would dislike socialism, at least find scripture to support your point.

 

Then again, I'm not religious so my understanding of the Bible is nil.

[snuffbox 0]

Oh by the way, the whole Ayn Rand libertarian thing is based upon the debate over free will, not the political stance. So yes, she is a libertarian inasmuch as Sartre was a libertarian.

 

No, she's not. Or even close. The absolute foundation of libertarianism is human freedom and liberty. Rand, a homophobe and totalitarian, does not fit that bill at all.

 

She gets the selfishness doctrine right, but you can't be a libertarian and be opposed to the rights of certain different individuals/groups just because they're different..

[Guest Czech please!]

But you can't really argue that God would endorse capitalism in the way that the Republican Party wants it.

Well, I wasn't. The whole approach of trying to parse what God's economic policy would be based on 2,000-year-old writings is stupid anyway. I think the Republicans are just staying in line with the whole Protestant Ethic thing, the merits of which can certainly be debated.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Christ on economics:

 

"Give to God what is God's, and give to Caesar what is Caesar's."

 

Clearly, you can base a whole economic policy on that.

[SuperJerk 0]

You can cherry-pick the Bible to support almost anything.

[Big Green 0]

But you can't really argue that God would endorse capitalism in the way that the Republican Party wants it.

Well, I wasn't. The whole approach of trying to parse what God's economic policy would be based on 2,000-year-old writings is stupid anyway. I think the Republicans are just staying in line with the whole Protestant Ethic thing, the merits of which can certainly be debated.

 

I was more trying to negate Glenn Beck than trying to argue whether or not God would endorse capitalism.

[SuperJerk 0]

As we move toward socialism, our government is also moving from a renter of our rights to an outright owner of them. That is causing us to lose sight of who the real owner is: our creator.

 

Are the pursuit of material goods and private property what Jefferson was referring to when he said "pursuit of happiness"? Not necessarily. He was paraphrasing John Locke, except Locke said "life, liberty, and property." If pursuing property makes you happy, then fine, but they are not synonyms.

 

Also, as we've debated, no part of the Obama agenda is actually socialism: government ownership of industry. No one is talking about abolishing private property.

 

So, yeah, Beck's a retard.

[Guest Czech please!]

Oh, well, that's fine. It's like Marvin is still haunting this board.

[snuffbox 0]

A Glen Beck article just isnt the same without all his funny faces/voices.

[Guest Czech please!]

I was at Borders a couple days before Christmas and standing in the B section when I saw this book called The Christmas Sweater, by Glenn Beck. I didn't bother to browse it because I was in public (though who's going to judge me for perusing Glenn Beck in McHenry?) and I wasn't sure it would be fun bad. It might just be bad bad. I imagine that it was about a magical sweater passed down through generations of a family, and then it would have something to do with preventing a 40-lane highway from connecting Mexico to Manitoba. I bet you a chocolate milk that Marvin bought it. If his Borders was like mine, how could he not? It was 75% off. Still not enough to sway me, as I bought The Sheltering Sky instead, which was a fun little literary jaunt.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

The Christmas Sweater, by Glenn Beck

 

I just looked this up on Amazon and hahaha

 

In Beck's debut novel, the conservative radio and TV host (An Inconvenient Book) makes a weak attempt at a holiday classic in the vein of It's a Wonderful Life. Despite his single mother's financial hardships, 12-year-old Eddie is certain this Christmas he will receive his much-desired Huffy bike. To his dismay, what he finds under the tree is "a stupid, handmade, ugly sweater" that his mother carefully modeled after those she can't afford at Sears (one of four places she keeps part-time jobs). Eddie tosses the sweater and insults his mother before the two go visit his grandparents at their farmouse. On the drive home, though, Eddie's exhausted mother falls asleep at the wheel and crashes, dying instantly. Sent to live with his grandparents, an increasingly bitter and angry Eddie lashes out at his accommodating guardians, engages in typical teenage angst and grapples with belief in God. For all his focus on traditional family virtues like respect, love and forgiveness, Beck's lightweight parable cruises on predictability, repetition and sentimentality.

 

edit: It also lists two "co-authors" (read: ghostwriters) as having worked on the book, one of whom apparently also worked with Beck on one of his retarded political books. Are we absolutely sure that Glenn Beck isn't actually illiterate?

[At Home 0]

Oh by the way, the whole Ayn Rand libertarian thing is based upon the debate over free will, not the political stance. So yes, she is a libertarian inasmuch as Sartre was a libertarian.

 

No, she's not. Or even close. The absolute foundation of libertarianism is human freedom and liberty. Rand, a homophobe and totalitarian, does not fit that bill at all.

 

She gets the selfishness doctrine right, but you can't be a libertarian and be opposed to the rights of certain different individuals/groups just because they're different..

 

The absolute foundation of philosophical libertarianism is free will, not free rights or what have you. She's certainly not a determinist. That being said, I've never read any Rand.

[snuffbox 0]

And that free will has to be for everybody, not just straight atheists who agree with everything that Ms. Rand ever said.

[At Home 0]

I don't think you're interpreting this correctly. Free will as the philosophical freedom to make decisions and not blame your environment for your actions. It has nothing to do with politics at all. It's like I said: she's a libertarian inasmuch as Sartre was.

 

Wait, what are you talking about? If you say "we have free will," you're going to mean everyone. I haven't read Rand, like I said, but no way in hell was she saying "well, these people have free will, and these people are determined."

[snuffbox 0]

Sorry, I'm not going to debate philosophy with you.

[At Home 0]

But that's the whole basis for calling Rand a libertarian!

[SuperJerk 0]

Free will as the philosophical freedom to make decisions and not blame your environment for your actions. It has nothing to do with politics at all.

 

Political philospohy, perhaps?

 

One of the cornerstones of Republican-flavored conservatism is that the people who are on top deserve to be because they made better choices in life.

[At Home 0]

Well, the whole "bootstraps" thing stems out of the libertarian philosophy. Your will is free, you are making choices, the environment around you is not making the choices for you. You are responsible for your own welfare.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm not debating the earlier points but I would like to say something about 'libertarian' Bootstrappers. I am fairly active in libertarian (almost exclusively with the small l) circles so I encounter several of the people, consistently. Almost without fail, they will all be very spoiled, very sheltered, young students (or aged versions thereof) who have been nothing but coddled their entire lives. It is relentlessly aggravating to be around them. When these people are added to the mindless Randians, libertarian functions can be hell.

 

For the record, though, we're not all terrible.

[At Home 0]

Well hey, Karl Marx never worked a day in his life.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The whole approach of trying to parse... God...based on 2,000-year-old writings is stupid anyway.

Quoted-out-of-context for accuracy.

 

Also:

 

I began writing this story with the intention of sharing it with just my family. But something happened along the way: The story took over and wrote itself. There are things I spent years trying, and eventually succeeding, to forget that just spilled out of me -- events I never intended to share with anyone. It’s almost as if my sweater wanted its story told. Perhaps it had sat silent on a shelf long enough.

-Marvin's Proxy Brain

[Art Sandusky 0]

The kid in the Christmas story berates his mother, she dies in a car crash, and it's self described as a light-hearted book? Could a dark journey of the soul authored by Glenn Beck be contained in the mere binding of a book?

[NoCalMike 0]

If people were to refer to our economy under Bill Clinton as "socialism" they would seemingly get laughed at, yet Obama who seems to have a similar centrist-moderate approach despite some more liberal sounding rhetoric in his speeches, is suddenly "dooming our country with socialism" all because of what exactly, he wants to roll back Bush's tax cuts on the top 2%?