WHY IS THERE NO LIBERAL AYN RAND ???

[Whirlaway]

The Democrats gave us ObamacareTax without compromise; passed in the middle of the night, before the legislation was written and reviewed, before we knew what was in it, rushed into law over the weekend, all you had to do was buy off some Democratic Senators. How many Republicans voted for ObamacareTax ? Where was the sanctity of comprise then ?

We can get the Constitutional Conservative equivalent, in triple spades !

[timpage]

You're saying Obama and the democrats didn't compromise to get the healthcare bill passed? You serious?

[Whirlaway]

Name a signficant Republican provision that was incorporated into ObamacareTax....how many Republicans voted yes ?

ObamacareTax is ALL Democrat !

For you to say otherwise shows your either an idiot or a liar.

[CuteOldGuy]

There were no Republican votes for Obamacare in the House or Senate. Totally one party bill.

[Whirlaway]

I think there was 1 Republican in the House who vote Aye. Who that person was I don't know; he probably is unemployed

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There were no Republican votes for Obamacare in the House or Senate. Totally one party bill.

[Whirlaway]

The fact that you believe that ObamacareTax evolved thru compromise shows the total state of denial that Obamazombies are living in.....your poltical world is so skewed from reality it is funny.

Originally Posted by timpage

You're saying Obama and the democrats didn't compromise to get the healthcare bill passed? You serious?

[Whirlaway]

The only wheeling and dealing was between Obama, BigPharm, AARP, unions, and tort lawyers. Everybody but american citizens and their representatives were at the Obama compromise table.

[Texas Contrarian]

The Democrats compromised with themselves in a number of ways.

See "Cornhusker Kickback", "Nebraska Compromise", and "Louisiana Purchase" (the modern-day one involving Senator Landrieu), for example.

The obvious goal was to score a political victory by cramming the bill through on a party-line vote, no matter how much they had to fuck it up in the process.

It would have been nice if the people responsible for this mess had acknowledged that a period when we were trying to recover from the most serious financial crisis in generations was perhaps not the best time to spend every available ounce of political energy shoving through a complex, expensive new entitlement plan which simply expands and subsidizes a system characterized by out-of-control costs.

[theaustinescorts]

Getting back to answering her question.....

Rand was not a philosopher but a polemicist. She was dedicated to rallying opinion against Stalinism because at the time Stalinism wasn't viewed as totalitarian tyranny but only altruism and collectivism. It wasn't till years later that the world realized that Russia was the most tyrannical and UN-ALTRUSITIC state of all.

So under those conditions Rand set out to critic altrusim itself, as well as empathy, compassion, cooperation, and anything remotely resembling civilized thought. She basically conflated Soviet communism with altrusim, which is why she has no relevance.

She wrote melodramtic screeds deploring anything that reflected the popular will.

According to her the public is always wrong, and must be led by a civilizing elite who's aesthetic and moral senses must prevail.

It's all garbage because she didn't believe much of it herself, is poorly written, and she couldn't get along personally with anyone.

Only really stupid young people who want to rebel against all forms of benevolance and show how tough they are cotton to her. If you're a spoiled rich kid who likes to pull the wings off flies she's the one for you.

Her opinions were more facist than anything, and her followers of that ilk.

By all means she was no conservative or anyone about liberty.

[Whirlaway]

The issue of Rand's character is peripheral and meaningless.........her writings have been adopted because they resonate with those who believe in free markets, individual rights, and economic liberties.

The point of the Beverly Gage article is the left has no equivalent inspirational writers; the dialogue from the left within this thread tends to support her assertion.........a warning sign for progressive politics. You can't continue to sow the seeds without a coherent philosphical framework that unites the movement.

Throw up Jane Jacobs to the left and many will run away, or say who? not so with the likes of Ayn Rand (or Hayek) and conservatives. And if your inspriational writer is Mark Twain, you are in a world on to yourself, there is no cohesion in that lesson, no collective understand that serve as the basis for action. Again, your political ideas can't be transformed into action because there is no common understanding or agreement on what Mark Twain is to your poltical philosphy.

[Whirlaway]

The lack of an overarching political philosphy makes hard core Progressives like Obama open to being pushed around by the individual interest groups that comprise their coalition (feminists, lawyers, environmentalists, etc).....what happens as a result isn't pretty and we are seeing it in action with the cornyism of Obama......Jay Cost documents it much better in his book and argues that the party is reaching it's breaking point.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005Z0JHUE/?tag=powlin-20

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

.......her writings have been adopted because they resonate with those who believe in free markets, individual rights, and economic liberties.

.

No, you couldn't be more wrong.

Rand didn't address liberty, rights, or markets.

She only preached about the evils of altruism, and the moral wrongs of following any majority.

She railed against democracy, and preached the virtues of plutocracy, aristocracy, monarchy, and dictatorship.

The idiots in this country who associate her with anything such as individual liberty and constitutionalism are merely putting lipstick on a swine they really love because they want to be mean rich people.

CRUSH THE WEAK!!!!!!!!!


btw anyone who's read "The Fountainhead" can see how ridiculous she is. Her hero is an architect who refuses to work for anyone because he thinks it's morally inferior to build anything that's not modernistic, bauhaus-style construction. He conflates aesthetic taste with morality, and insists that if a building isn't made completely of glass walls and steel that it's the fault of the hiteous masses.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If the Sandbox lefties had any intelligence they would have dug into the Beveraly Gage article at Slate; Gage is a liberal lead journalist for Slate. She knows what she is talking about.....unlike the idiot lefties in the Sandbox.

Basically Gage makes the case that the current state of progressive politics in America has devolved into a collection of small advocacy groups, each with a specific set of "philosophers" who shape the thinking of that small group - feminists, greenies, redistributionsits, ludites, etc. The days of a monolithic left that relies on Marx, Alinsky, etc., are gone....

Gage thinks that is bad for progressive poltiics. I guess it makes them easier targets to pick off by the smarter more informed conservatives ?

It also limits the messaging and appeal of progressive politics; lacking an an over arching policy shtick...it also means there may be less cohesion on national issues; concensus building becomes much more difficult.

tick, tick, tick.

30-50 years or so ago "liberalism" wanted to get out of Vietnam, legalize weed and prostitution, save the whales, love mother earth, give civil rights to blacks, burn the bra, etc.

Now they just want the government to take your money and redistribute it...and they are called "progressives" for some reason.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

30-50 years or so ago "liberalism" wanted to get out of Vietnam, legalize weed and prostitution, save the whales, love mother earth, give civil rights to blacks, burn the bra, etc.

Now they just want the government to take your money and redistribute it...and they are called "progressives" for some reason.

That's a gross distortion.

Progressives in the 20th century succeeded greatly at reforming labor laws, regulating utilities, monopolies, banks and markets. They brought about agricultural policy, and the availability of pubicly-funded higher education. They reformed courts and prisons, and brought about voting rights and upheld constitutional liberties such as the right of citizens not to incriminate themselves while in custody.

The progressives MADE THE MIDDLE CLASS.

They didn't need some single "philosopher" to point the way because they were simply taking on issues one at a time....pragmatically.

And I call myself today a conservative btw....

My heros are Eisenhower and Dewey, not some snot-nosed moron like Ryan.

I do like Romney though...quit a lot like Eisenhower and Ryan is like Nixon.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

No, you couldn't be more wrong.

Rand didn't address liberty, rights, or markets.

She only preached about the evils of altruism, and the moral wrongs of following any majority.

She railed against democracy, and preached the virtues of plutocracy, aristocracy, monarchy, and dictatorship.

The idiots in this country who associate her with anything such as individual liberty and constitutionalism are merely putting lipstick on a swine they really love because they want to be mean rich people.

CRUSH THE WEAK!!!!!!!!!


btw anyone who's read "The Fountainhead" can see how ridiculous she is. Her hero is an architect who refuses to work for anyone because he thinks it's morally inferior to build anything that's not modernistic, bauhaus-style construction. He conflates aesthetic taste with morality, and insists that if a building isn't made completely of glass walls and steel that it's the fault of the hiteous masses.

Howard Roark didn't believe that modern architecture was morally superior to any other style of architecture. The moral question involved in the Fountainhead was the importance of being true to your own belief system, refusing to compromise your beliefs because of the desire of the collective.

Ayn Rand practically worshipped Aristotle. Aristotle taught that true self respect was the highest virtue. Rand believed that true self respect could only be achieved by refusing to compromise one's beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw5YACKiPAk