Weekly Open Thread – Bumped

@ilovebeeswarzone:

Thank you, Ms. Bees, for those kind words, and I hope that your Easter Sunday was good as well.

Rich is simply looking at the world through a prism, one hammered into him long ago. And in any attempt at a rational discussion, he fails miserably, by choosing to label the commentator, and their sources of information, with contemptible, snarky comments, rather than discuss the comments themselves.

As for his comments about Ayn Rand, he chooses to follow the thoughts of other liberals I’ve witnessed, who love to comment on her atheism, as if that has any bearing whatsoever on moral principles. Moral principles, amongst a society of men living with one another, involves respecting other’s rights, along with their freedoms and liberties, and expecting the same considerations in return. Whether or not one believes they were given by God, as our founding fathers believed, or as a result of being a rational, thinking being, the only one on earth, and that the act of being born gave us those moral principles to live with, as Ayn Rand has stated, makes no difference whatsoever.

The people Rich has thrown his lot in life in with believe that ‘need’ is the sole, defining factor in determining how man lives with one another, hence their support of things like Obamacare, or those leftists on the ‘right’ who believe that corporate subsidies, given by ‘need’, is charity that man should be forced, by government, to give their fellow man, simply by such arbitrary values as one’s ‘need’ and another’s ‘ability’. No where on earth, where these values have been practiced, has a society succeeded in forming a ‘utopia’ on earth. Yet, liberals tell you that it is man’s own faults that are to blame. Well, what do you expect to happen, when the actions governing man, fall to arbitrary values that allow the least moral amongst men, practicing criminal actions, to thrive, while those valuing others’ rights and freedoms are the beasts of burden allowing mankind to survive, at their own destruction?

Liberals will tell you that it isn’t like that, that a “middle ground” must be attained, in order for society to survive. The problem with that mentality is, that in questions of right, wrong, and the middle, one argument is right, one is wrong, but has at least the knowledge of why the argument is wrong, while the middle, is without principle, and can never learn why a stance taken is right, or why the other is wrong. Their “middle ground” is what led to those arbitrary values they place on people’s ‘needs’ and ‘ability’.

John Galt Thanks for your response in #95.Like you I believe the Constitution an incredible documunt written by great and courageous men.
To call my comments snarky or to continue to tell readers what I BELIEVE seems ridiculous to me.
I don’t know your name though I DON’T CHANGE MINE. You use John Galt,a fictional character,a hero in Alas Shrugged penned by Ayn Rand.When she lived I saw her interviewed on 3 or 4 occasions.She proudly proclaimed her atheistic views and belief that the worshiping of God was “FOR THE WEAK WILLED”She rejected all forms of faith and religion.The existance of God could not be proven. Therefore HE did not exist. Right or wrong. No middle ground.Because she held this view so strongly it would suprise me if it did not strongly influence her writings. You disagree?
I know we can agree America is a great country. As to our leaders, that’s why we have free elections.All should vote and make their voices heard as witnessed here at F.A.

@rich wheeler:

The fact is, many of your comments are snarky, and you rarely address the actual issues being discussed, evidenced in this thread when you said I was lecturing on the Constitution, yet you only addressed Rand and religion, and did not address the actual content of my post. I asked you if anything I discussed, regarding the Constitution was wrong, and you haven’t answered yet. Why?

As for Ayn Rand herself, I have discussed this, and I feel no compulsion to do so again. If you feel that her atheism somehow disqualifies anything she wrote, in relation to the truth, you are mistaken, as she reflected very closely what our founding fathers wrote about government.

I have my reasons why I choose the moniker johngalt for my postings, and I don’t care one whit that you use your own name. I don’t care, as well, if you believe that my using that name somehow means that what I post is unworthy of thought, because you have a dislike for Rand’s work. As I posted to Ms. Bees, liberals tend to focus on everything about Ayn Rand except the content of the writing itself, and the messages contained therein, especially focusing on her views of religion.

I know we can agree America is a great country. As to our leaders, that’s why we have free elections.All should vote and make their voices heard as witnessed here at F.A.

I don’t believe that you do think this is a great country, why else do you support people whose goal it is to dramatically change it, towards a more socialistic society?

John Galt I don’t think anything you said re. the Constitution is wrong. As you know as a Marine Corps Officer my oath was “I do solemly swear I will support and defend the Constitution—–“. I also believe in The Pledge of Allegiance “One Nation Under God.”

I can appreciate and agree with much of what Ms. Rand writes and the beliefs of her main protaganist John Galt.
My concern is with the content of her heart and soul.She is a woman who does not believe in God and further believes it a “weakness and a crutch” to do so. She seems to consider compassion for those less fortunate a weakness.
Here I stand with JFK “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor it cannot protect the few who are rich.”

Thought Duvall’s take on Conservatism in “Prager University post” #5 was hilarious and right on the mark.

rich wheeler, yes the CONSERVATIVES know that to protect and help the poor is not with
the socialist communist way,which destroy the poor and render them slaves of the government who choose the SOCIALIST WAY,which has prooven wrong in many past times,
where the GOVERNMENT who had wanted to make them to spread the wealth on the coLlective society,
the same GOVERNMENT END UP BY KILLING THE ONES WHO DID NOT AGREE WITH THEM,
AND REFUSE TO BECOME THE DICTATOR;S SLAVES,
and those people where the smartest who had discerned the goal of the leader they where killed by his activists who followed orders, first imprinted in them by propaganda and sublimical media power that has them doomed, than their inciting became order to eliminate the loud voices of reason,
and those doomed activists became the murderers of millions of so precious human been who where the bravest, the most intelligent, the most creatives minds , THE MOST ABLE TO LEAD A NATION WITH CARE FOR THE POORS AND INCENTIVE FOR THE CREATOR, AND THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE INTELLIGENT BUILDER OF JOBS WITH THEIR CAPACITY TO LEAD.

@rich wheeler: RE:

Here I stand with JFK “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor it cannot protect the few who are rich.”

I’m not necessarily backing Ms. Rand but I am familiar with what passes for ”poverty” in America.

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
*Forty six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
*Seventy six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
*Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than twothirds have more than two rooms per person.
*The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
*Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
*Ninety seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
*Seventy eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
*Seventy three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. – Understanding Poverty in America

As long as our poor can self-describe such a rosy picture it should be the gov’t’s business to protect the rich…..so they can assist more people out of poverty.

@rich wheeler:

My concern is with the content of her heart and soul.She is a woman who does not believe in God and further believes it a “weakness and a crutch” to do so. She seems to consider compassion for those less fortunate a weakness.

Again, Ayn Rand’s philosophy on government’s role in society follows very closely with many of the founding father’s views, such as Jefferson, Madison, and despite what Larry has stated, Hamilton. Religion has very little to do with it. Whatever you feel about her personally is quite beside the point.

She doesn’t feel compassion for the less fortunate a weakness, only that charity, at the point of a gun, is not charity at all, but simply legal theft, done at the behest of people who hold no objective value of one’s labor and industry, with arbitrary rules, changing dependent upon the political clime.

I hate it that our wars are now being fought by an all volunteer army and that they are not paid for with tax increases and true shared sacrifice.

Unfortunately I think the shared sacrifice applies across the board which is why I am not getting my hopes on our debt issue being resolved. Everyone complains about it but when it comes time to swallow the medicine that will be required to fix it, i.e. big time spending cuts, people check the too hard box and complain about it. In other words, raise taxes as long as it’s someone elses taxes. Cut spending as long as it’s not my Social Security or Medicare etc.

Whether they were volunteers or conscripts has nothing at all to do with it. The Greatest Generation did their duty.

I wasn’t trying to imply that they didn’t want to serve or anything merely that there is a general misconception that they were beating down the doors to the recruiting stations to volunteer which wasn’t the case. They earned the title The Greatest Generation for a reason as they put nation first which is something too many modern day Americans seem not to want to do in certain cases. Hopefully there wasn’t a misunderstanding with that point.

@Randy: Patriotism has definitely gone out the window. I often wonder that if some of the current crop of Americans were around in 1941, whether or not we’d be goose stepping. That is why I give lots of credit to the kids who joined the military post 9/11. They did so knowing they were going to end up in harms way. To me, they are our Second Greatest Generation. The blame America first crowd neither gets it nor appreciates it which is why I have NO use for them and won’t give them the time of day.