LOLZ, who knew?

[j_b]

Turns out Ayn Rand was as much a hypocrite as your average tea-bagger. Who knew?

 

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them

 

Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.

 

Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

 

As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”

 

[..]

 

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them

[billcoe]

Come up with something better. As the government takes that $ away from us out of our paychecks EACH month with the promise that we will get it back later, you would have to have a twisted brain to believe that you are somehow cheating the gov't or being a hypocrite when in fact you are only getting YOUR OWN money back.

 

The more you pay in the more you get back. It's YOUR OWN DAMN money, NOT the governments.

[j_b]

I agree that it is your money and so does the article I linked, but I am not the one ranting constantly about public services, "ponzi schemes" and big government, while drawing benefits from them.

[billcoe]

I agree that it is your money and so does the article I linked, but I am not the one ranting constantly about public services, "ponzi schemes" and big government, while drawing benefits from them.

 

Complaining about "big government"? Like these guys?

 

Thomas Jefferson observed:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

 

 

And James Madison:

"That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."

 

 

And Samuel Adams:

"The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional."

 

Uhhh, whatever.

[ZimZam]

No. Kinda like these guys. The teacups that ride around in their chairs from the scooterstore, paid for through SocSec, all the while complaining about Obama and gubment waste as they're scarfing down Big Macs. Fucking hypocrites.

"Hey don't blame me. I voted for the hero, not the Negro."

[tvashtarkatena]

That guy would look better on fire

[KaskadskyjKozak]

No. Kinda like these guys. The teacups that ride around in their chairs from the scooterstore, paid for through SocSec, all the while complaining about Obama and gubment waste as they're scarfing down Big Macs. Fucking hypocrites.

"Hey don't blame me. I voted for the hero, not the Negro."

 

Where'd you get the pic of TTK?

[DPS]

It's YOUR OWN DAMN money, NOT the governments.

 

Actually neither. Money belongs to the Federal Reserve. And if you think your land belongs to you and the government can not take it, I've got a nice red bridge that crosses the Snoqualmie River to sell you.

[j_b]

Complaining about "big government"? Like these guys?

 

Thomas Jefferson observed:

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

 

 

And James Madison:

"That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."

 

 

And Samuel Adams:

"The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional."

 

Uhhh, whatever.

 

more hypocrisy from those who never have anything bad to say about those who actually steal the property of others, like the Koch brothers for instance (the main source of funding for teabagging small government ranters):

 

The Koch Bros. and Corporate Welfare

6. EMINENT DOMAIN

 

Although highly diversified, Koch Industries' vast network of oil and gas pipelines remains the company's core business and main source of revenue. The exact size of their pipeline network is not known, but some estimate that Koch Industries operates anywhere between 35,000 and 50,000 miles of pipelines between Texas and Canada—enough plumbing to wrap around the globe twice or zigzag between New York and Los Angeles 15 times. How did the Kochs manage to build up a pipeline network of this magnitude? By getting the government to use its tyrannical powers of eminent domain forcibly seize private property on Koch Industries' behalf.

 

http://www.observer.com/2010/slideshow/131739/eminent-domain

[billcoe]

more hypocrisy from those who never have anything bad to say about those who actually steal the property of others, like the Koch brothers for instance (the main source of funding for teabagging small government ranters):

 

 

The Koch Bros. and Corporate Welfare

6. EMINENT DOMAIN

 

Although highly diversified, Koch Industries' vast network of oil and gas pipelines remains the company's core business and main source of revenue. The exact size of their pipeline network is not known, but some estimate that Koch Industries operates anywhere between 35,000 and 50,000 miles of pipelines between Texas and Canada—enough plumbing to wrap around the globe twice or zigzag between New York and Los Angeles 15 times. How did the Kochs manage to build up a pipeline network of this magnitude? By getting the government to use its tyrannical powers of eminent domain forcibly seize private property on Koch Industries' behalf.

 

http://www.observer.com/2010/slideshow/131739/eminent-domain

 

That's a real good link, however, I don't know how you can argue against the right of immanent domain. Without it we would have no interstate or probably other highways. As far as your links goes, it makes it sound like there was no due process and Minnesota took the land. That's not the way that works in case you are unfamiliar with it, maybe you should research due process as it relates to immanent domain, and it is a process - it's not theft even if you choose to call it that. As far as the benefit of having a pipeline, I would imagine that folks in that area are happier in the cold assed winters and paying less for gas at the pump. Surely you don't think that the state would or should do a project like that? It's high risk, and states generally try to stay out of high risk, even when they are high reward. They come in after the fact and regulate the price.

 

I think you'd have a better point discussing them having been caught with their hand in the cookie jar (this time was a $25 million dollar fine). Let me do your research for you to strengthen what I think your point is. Check this link. CBS STORY OF THEFT AND BETRAYAL or this one THEFT THEFT THEFT link or if you really wanted to whine you could bring up the elder Cocks having a partner (Marshall) who was dicking Anna Nicole Smith when he was a wrinkly old prune.

 

 

I thought both 3 of 7 and 5 of 7 would have been better to make your point.

 

 

 

"6 of 7

6. EMINENT DOMAIN

 

Although highly diversified, Koch Industries' vast network of oil and gas pipelines remains the company's core business and main source of revenue. The exact size of their pipeline network is not known, but some estimate that Koch Industries operates anywhere between 35,000 and 50,000 miles of pipelines between Texas and Canada—enough plumbing to wrap around the globe twice or zigzag between New York and Los Angeles 15 times. How did the Kochs manage to build up a pipeline network of this magnitude? By getting the government to use its tyrannical powers of eminent domain forcibly seize private property on Koch Industries' behalf.

 

As far as libertarians are concerned, eminent domain is a socialist tyranny straight out of the Leninist playbook, as it recognizes the government as the real owner of all land and vests it with the power to expropriate private property for alleged public good. At the most fundamental level, libertarians believe that eminent domain invalidates the notion of private property rights, threatening not just prosperity, but freedom. Charles Koch is clear on this. "Countries that clearly define and protect individual private property rights stimulate investment and grow," he writes in his book The Science of Success. "Those that threaten and confiscate private property lose capital and decline."

 

But not all property rights are created equal. Koch Industries oil pipeline recently built in Minnesota shows that Charles Koch does not see an is anything wrong with the government confiscating private property, as long as he stands to make a profit. Completed in 2008, the 304-mile line now carries crude oil from the Canadian border to a Koch Industries refinery near the Twin Cities area via a two-foot-wide pipe. Company PR execs pitched the pipeline as a public benefit project, as it would increase Minnesota's gasoline supply. But the 1,000-plus landowners who were forced to handover their private property so that Koch Industries could run its pipeline didn't quite see it that way. "People's rights were violated, and they never got their due process," a farmer whose fields were going to be cut in two by the pipeline told a newspaper in 2007. "It's wrong. People's property is one of the most important things to their livelihood."

 

Thanks for the link, although it's a lot of opinion. Like whining about Cock buying a ship from a socialist country (1 of 7) and naming it after his mother...uhhhh, sure. BF deal.

 

Use my links next time you try and make this point, those are real facts about real theft. I don't know anyone who supports that kind of bullshit and I'm glad they got caught. I think there should have been jail time served but I wasn't there and don't know the facts (maybe the prosecutor determined that a conviction would have been impossible) so who are you specifically calling a hypocrite? Was that me or the Cocks? For them it is all about money, and they'd stab your mother in the back for a buck. However, if these dickheads start collecting some of the money that the govt took from them via Social Security, as much as I dislike the Obama tax cuts that gave these guys lower tax rates than they had while our country continues to go deeper in dept that we are borrowing on the world market and will have to pay back, I would support their right to get THEIR money (and it is their money that the Gov't took away for Social Security, not the federal reserves) back.

 

 

Enjoy the links, later dude!

[j_b]

I am not arguing against eminent domain or discussing the details of the process. I am arguing against HYPOCRITES who couch their actions as necessary for the greater good, while they'll claim that similar actions by others is theft and the expression of government tyranny. Got it?

[prole]

[billcoe]

I am not arguing against eminent domain or discussing the details of the process. I am arguing against HYPOCRITES who couch their actions as necessary for the greater good, while they'll claim that similar actions by others is theft and the expression of government tyranny. Got it?

 

As I don't think you can find someone to argue FOR being a hypocrite, I believe we part company on if one is a hypocrite for getting their own money back that the government had earlier took away from them.

 

For myself, I still want smaller government and I want my own money back. We can't continue to borrow and spend like a drunken sailor. We MUST reduce the borrowing or we will be in deep yogurt sooner or later. No less than the future and security of our country is at stake.

[j_b]

Tea baggers are hypocrites for doing what they deny others, like enjoying the benefits of single payer health care (medicare) while denying it to everybody else.

 

If you want smaller government you ought to be for single payer healthcare for everybody because the ever inflating cost of the most expensive private insurance in the OECD for certain will bankrupt us, unless of course you are planning on denying access to the emergency room to the 50 millions uninsured, and counting.

[billcoe]

Tea baggers are hypocrites for doing what they deny others, like enjoying the benefits of single payer health care (medicare) while denying it to everybody else.

 

If you want smaller government you ought to be for single payer healthcare for everybody because the ever inflating cost of the most expensive private insurance in the OECD for certain will bankrupt us, unless of course you are planning on denying access to the emergency room to the 50 millions uninsured, and counting.

 

Ayn Rand was a tea bagger? Wow, who knew?

 

Now you want to debate healthcare? Have you personally read the new gov't healhtcare bill? I haven't, too big and confusing. I can't even comment on it except that being all big and confusing should have a good outcome. NOT!

[j_b]

So you are going to deny that most tea-baggers and Ayn Rand share the same sociopathic ideology? That must explain why the great priest of tea bagging himself, Glen "father Coughlin" Beck, pushes Rand's drivel at every opportunity.

 

I don't want to debate health care but you claim to want to stop the bleeding and expanding Medicare to everyone (i.e. single payer health care) would be a good way to start despite the anti-government ranting of teabaggers.

[billcoe]

So you are going to deny that most tea-baggers and Ayn Rand share the same sociopathic ideology? That must explain why the great priest of tea bagging himself, Glen "father Coughlin" Beck, pushes Rand's drivel at every opportunity.

 

I don't want to debate health care but you claim to want to stop the bleeding and expanding Medicare to everyone (i.e. single payer health care) would be a good way to start despite the anti-government ranting of teabaggers.

 

Either you support the constitution or you don't. I'm going to let the judges sort out the health care debate for now. The 2nd judge has just ruled it unconstitutional. I think 2 have said it's fine as written, so they can fight it out. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/31/5961248-florida-judge-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional-

 

As far as your other rant, I don't listen to Glen "father Coughlin" Beck, and don't care to start just so we can discuss if getting your own money back, AS PROMISED, that which was forcibly taken from you each paycheck, is hypocrisy or not. Unless someone (Rand in this case) has specifically said that "GO AHEAD, TAKE MY MONEY EACH PAYCHECK AND I DON'T EVER WANT TO SEE IT AND I WILL NOT ASK FOR IT BACK EVER", or something like that: and then turns around and takes it later, I say not. It is NOT hypocrisy. You might consider looking up the word in the dictionary and we can start again from there.

 

Let me help you get that info:

 

"Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

 

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy" in Rambler No. 14:

 

Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.[1]

 

Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy so long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety."

 

You are welcome for that as well as the links I gave you above that helped further your case but which you seemed to have not clicked or read. Shall I post the full text of those 2 links here to make it easier for you?

 

[billcoe]

Pretty good read by the way:

 

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/___Politics_Today_Stories_Teases/PPM153_vin.pdf

[j_b]

Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy so long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety.

 

You are pretending there is no difference between advocating sobriety and denying someone else the possibility of drinking. Hellooooo? To pursue your analogy, tea baggers are fully intent on preventing anybody else from having a drink under the pretense it is trampling their liberty while they keep drinking, which makes their hypocrisy abundantly clear.

 

Not only am I not especially discussing health care except for illustration of tea bagger hypocrisy but I am definitely not discussing the health care bill that will do very little toward containing escalating health care costs.

[billcoe]

Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy so long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety.

 

You are pretending there is no difference between advocating sobriety and denying someone else the possibility of drinking. Hellooooo? To pursue your analogy, tea baggers are fully intent on preventing anybody else from having a drink under the pretense it is trampling their liberty while they keep drinking, which makes their hypocrisy abundantly clear.

 

Not only am I not especially discussing health care except for illustration of tea bagger hypocrisy but I am definitely not discussing the health care bill that will do very little toward containing escalating health care costs.

 

Your issue is with the encyclopedia, I copied and pasted that directly. If you wish to discuss "tea bagger hypocrisy" that's fine, but I suspect that given that we appear to be on different planets on the Ayn Rand hypocrisy charge you made, in that you have never addressed my points while continually introducing new and different ones with almost every post you make, we will get nowhere on that as well. So byby, have fun talking to yourself.

 

[Peter_Puget]

lies or hypocrisy or "things go better w/ Koch"

 

 

 

 

linky

 

Edited February 1, 2011 by Peter_Puget

[j_b]

get your garbage out of this thread or re-size it.

[prole]

This thread is amazing.

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=svOlz2ei4Yk

[j_b]

Your issue is with the encyclopedia, I copied and pasted that directly. If you wish to discuss "tea bagger hypocrisy" that's fine, but I suspect that given that we appear to be on different planets on the Ayn Rand hypocrisy charge you made, in that you have never addressed my points while continually introducing new and different ones with almost every post you make, we will get nowhere on that as well. So byby, have fun talking to yourself.

 

 

Citing is one thing. Doing it appropriately is an entirely different proposition. You are like these baggers who quote the founders of this country as if the citation supported their claims .. oh, wait a minute, it's what you did up there.

 

I didn't address your points because they weren't relevant. Nobody asked you to answer my post. You did it all by yourself.

[j_b]

Let us remember as well that teabaggers didn't say a word during 8 years of attacks on civil liberty, 8 years of committing our tax dollars to foreign military ventures, 8 years of tax breaks for the ubber wealthy, etc .. and suddenly, once their man isn't at the helm anymore, they remember about the "tyranny of government".

 

As I said, hypocrites.