Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm pretty sure
The Matron of ConquerClub wrote:my old professors said it but I don't know which ones or where or when
This is a good note to end on, Juan.
you're dismissed now
thanks
Moderator: Community Team
Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm pretty sure
The Matron of ConquerClub wrote:my old professors said it but I don't know which ones or where or when
BigBallinStalin wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:You can visit aynrand.org where they blame Social Security for partially increasing our national debt somehow.
Oh, you know, unfunded liabilities and all that. Don't worry your simple brain about it; it wouldn't matter if I tried leading your obstinate ass to water. Your subsidies from the professional politicians will be coming in soon, so you can continue your anti-intellectual crusade against straw men and women.
Two thumbs up for Phat Bottom.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:You can visit aynrand.org where they blame Social Security for partially increasing our national debt somehow.
Oh, you know, unfunded liabilities and all that. Don't worry your simple brain about it; it wouldn't matter if I tried leading your obstinate ass to water. Your subsidies from the professional politicians will be coming in soon, so you can continue your anti-intellectual crusade against straw men and women.
Two thumbs up for Phat Bottom.
I caught this one cause I was pretty sure that you were going to bandwagon with Saxi.
1) SS has not contributed 1 penny to our nation debt
2) If we only doubled the rate that billionaires pay in, SS would be fine for like another 70 years - big whoop
And what rate do they pay in at? The same as someone who makes $110K a year?
5/15/2012 Bernie Sanders
Can you imagine how little you could get away with if I took you off of foe? You must be loving this.
thegreekdog wrote:Come on BBS and Saxi, you're just being too detail-oriented.
Ayn Rand clearly wrote "John Galt said, 'I hate sociale security.'" Rand spelled the word "social" incorrectly, which should not make JB wrong.
Juan_Bottom wrote:There's a long string of "huh?" likes for Ryan. He likes Rands philosophy, but she turned hypocrite and basically took back everything that she said, he likes Rage, but Morello says that his pissed-off music is about Ryan, and he like Thomas Aquinas. The T.A. who hates women.
patrickaa317 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:He likes Rands philosophy, but she turned hypocrite and basically took back everything that she said,
I've never heard this before, can you provide me with some details on this?
You trust what Phat Bottom will give you?
I'll trust it enough to read it, then research and form an opinion.
Juan_Bottom wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Rand called people who receive welfare, Social Security, and other funds through such programs "vultures" and said that greed is what makes us great or some junk,... right?
Then she lost a fortune and spent her final years living on Social Security and Medicare.
I've said before that I don't know if Social Security allowed her to live in dignity; or if it caused her to lose her dignity.
I'm sure she would say something about how taking the money is ok because her point was that greed is good or something, but IMHO she fails.
So she didn't actually retract her comments as indicated in your post?
Actions speak louder than words. She didn't write any book retracting what she wrote or anything, she just went ahead and did everything she told us was wrong and parasitic to do.
saxitoxin wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:I answered your question; it's a trick question because she wrote fiction books to promote Laissez-Faire. I'm pretty sure that I cannot even find a quote of her directly criticizing welfare. The characters in her books do though. If you read Atlas Shrugged you'd understand what a moocher and a looter are. Laissez-Faire, her beloved form of capitalism, does not leave room for Social Security. Now, obviously she did do some talking too, but she didn't directly criticize a lot. All of her essays pretty much rehash her old arguments about capitalism, sex, and religion. If you're going to argue that she was not against Social Security or welfare then you're going to run up against not only the liberals here, but also the conservatives. It's no-man's land. And as Ayn Rand said, the middle ground is the most dishonest & evil or something.
I specifically redirected to you that it was a trick question because I know how you like to twist everything to match your antagonistic, anarchistic agenda. I had to make sure I put that there in the beginning for people who read through.
I'll rephrase my question to a single word if that helps.
Juan_Bottom wrote: Rand called people who receive welfare, Social Security, and other funds through such programs "vultures"
Saxi wrote: Where?
Juan_Bottom wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Rand called people who receive welfare, Social Security, and other funds through such programs "vultures" and said that greed is what makes us great or some junk,... right?
Then she lost a fortune and spent her final years living on Social Security and Medicare.
I've said before that I don't know if Social Security allowed her to live in dignity; or if it caused her to lose her dignity.
I'm sure she would say something about how taking the money is ok because her point was that greed is good or something, but IMHO she fails.
So she didn't actually retract her comments as indicated in your post?
Actions speak louder than words. She didn't write any book retracting what she wrote or anything, she just went ahead and did everything she told us was wrong and parasitic to do.
It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.
thegreekdog wrote:Come on BBS and Saxi, you're just being too detail-oriented.
Ayn Rand clearly wrote "John Galt said, 'I hate sociale security.'" Rand spelled the word "social" incorrectly, which should not make JB wrong.
Phatscotty wrote:Rand does not have to be perfect in order for her ideals and her philosophy she put forth to have merit. That's the worst argument ever, but I'm not getting into it further than that because this is all a joke anyways, and I only address this to point out the worst argument ever.
patrickaa317 wrote:Her actions in this case make the words she spoke louder.
and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.
Phatscotty wrote:She did specifically pay into the social security fund. She was just getting her own money back. That is the reason we pay into it. There is no problem with that, and that is exactly how it is supposed to work.
You would only have a point if she received corporate or public welfare.
Phatscotty wrote:She did specifically pay into the social security fund. She was just getting her own money back. That is the reason we pay into it. There is no problem with that, and that is exactly how it is supposed to work.
You would only have a point if she received corporate or public welfare.
Phatscotty wrote:but she was right that Social Security is a socialist program and if she were alive today she would identify it as the ponzi-scheme that it is
By now it’s no secret that I think Social Security is an unjust monstrosity by which the elderly live off the work of younger generations. So what should be done about it?
The only moral solution—the only one that puts an end to the wealth redistribution and protects people’s right to keep what they earn—is to abolish Social Security entirely.
Juan_Bottom wrote: Of course, being part of post-depression generation should have given her a better perspective, I think.
patrickaa317 wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: Of course, being part of post-depression generation should have given her a better perspective, I think.
Actually, she was just under 40 years old when the depression ended, not part of the "post-depression" generation. "Post-depression" generation typically applies to people 20-40 years born after her.
I think I found the issue, you must be talking of a different Ayn Rand than the rest of us.
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl, mookiemcgee