On 2007-10-28 19:09:27 -0700, Hachiroku ハチ�ク <Trueno@AE86.gts> said:

> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:01:51 -0400, qarzhz wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:40:47 -0700, witfal wrote:
>>
>> You have a strong dislike for ragheads because:
>>
>> 1- You are an
>
> I'm the one who hates Ragheads.
>
>>
>> 2- You are stupid enough to believe the media.
>
>
> When I see a radical Islamist running a terrorism school and saying "Death
> To Americans", yeah, I guess I am stupid enough to believe the media. BTW,
> it was the NBC Nightly News, not Fox/Glenn Beck/Limbaugh. NBC, you know,
> one of the Liberal news outlets?
>
>>
>> 3- You are also a crossposting twit.
>
>
> *I* posted this in Toyotas. How it got crossed isn't clear...I don't feel
> like looking back.

Now you did it, Hachi. He's going to post another equally erudite statement.

 

bill wrote:
> On Oct 28, 6:37 pm, "F.H." <connec...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>> F.H. wrote:
>>>> Enrico Fermi wrote:
>>>>> "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
>>>>> may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber
>>>>> barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's
>>>>> cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
>>>>> satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us
>>>>> without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
>>>>> -- C.S. Lewis
>>>> Lewis underestimates the all encompassing nature of greed. Genetics
>>>> suggests an endless supply of wannabe "robber barons" and history show
>>>> no record of any "satiation point."
>>>> Lewis described his younger self as "very angry with God for not
>>>> existing". Apparently when he discovered God he then channeled his
>>>> anger towards what he saw in Church on Sunday ("those who torment us
>>>> for our own good will torment us without end").
>>>> And sure enough, in a rigged game with that pesky mortality always
>>>> playing in the background he finds plenty to agree. And disagree.
>>> Good an evil are human inventions. It has been a long time since I read
>>> C.S.Lewis. He did seem to have suffered the deeper implications of god
>>> and morality.
>>> If anyone that has read Lewis and hasn't read 'The Screwtape Letters', I
>>> highly recommend it...

>> I tried and couldn't finish. It's been a long while. I should try it
>> again. I liked Ayn Rand when I was 20, now I see what she has spawned
>> and its unsettling, to say the least.
>
>
> She didn't spawn this mess.
> None of this was possible without a whole lot of exactly what she
> made it absolutely clear was immoral BS.
> You cannot blame the actions of a government licensed regulated
> monopoly on free enterprise. Reason being, it isn't.
> All utilities and energy suppliers in this country are totally
> the province of government or at the most, products of an unholy union
> between government and business. What we are seeing is exactly,
> precisely what was warned against in atlas shrugged. Read it again.

I didn't specify what it was that I saw she had "spawned." You presumed
much. Talk about spring loaded. Which brings me to what it actually
*was* I was referring to with "spawned". The personalities.

I should read Atlas Shrugged again? How about the bible? The Koran?
The Torah? The Book of Mormon? How about " Monetary History of the
United States 1867 1960" or "The Wealth of Nations."

Each and every one of these idealizations for human activity has spawned
hysterical, fanatical followers who have made the writers their personal
saviors and distorted the original message to fit their own fears,
preoccupations and urgency to be *right*. None, (especially Rand, IMO)
were Saints to begin with. The irony is that the more fanatical the
followers become the more they tend to evolve into exactly what their
heroes set out to protest. Especially (IMO), with economics but one
certainly has to give honorable mention to religious leaders who cry out
for killing in Gods name.

The book I found that made the most sense to me when trying to
understand the human merry go round was the 1973 Pulitzer Prize winner,
"Denial of Death" by Ernest Becker. If you scroll down to the reviews
you may understand why.

http://www.amazon.com/Denial-Death-E.../dp/0684832402
http://tinyurl.com/29wmtb

 

bill wrote:
> On Oct 28, 6:37 pm, "F.H." <connec...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>> F.H. wrote:
>>>> Enrico Fermi wrote:
>>>>> "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
>>>>> may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber
>>>>> barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's
>>>>> cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
>>>>> satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us
>>>>> without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
>>>>> -- C.S. Lewis
>>>> Lewis underestimates the all encompassing nature of greed. Genetics
>>>> suggests an endless supply of wannabe "robber barons" and history show
>>>> no record of any "satiation point."
>>>> Lewis described his younger self as "very angry with God for not
>>>> existing". Apparently when he discovered God he then channeled his
>>>> anger towards what he saw in Church on Sunday ("those who torment us
>>>> for our own good will torment us without end").
>>>> And sure enough, in a rigged game with that pesky mortality always
>>>> playing in the background he finds plenty to agree. And disagree.
>>> Good an evil are human inventions. It has been a long time since I read
>>> C.S.Lewis. He did seem to have suffered the deeper implications of god
>>> and morality.
>>> If anyone that has read Lewis and hasn't read 'The Screwtape Letters', I
>>> highly recommend it...

>> I tried and couldn't finish. It's been a long while. I should try it
>> again. I liked Ayn Rand when I was 20, now I see what she has spawned
>> and its unsettling, to say the least.
>
>
> She didn't spawn this mess.
> None of this was possible without a whole lot of exactly what she
> made it absolutely clear was immoral BS.
> You cannot blame the actions of a government licensed regulated
> monopoly on free enterprise. Reason being, it isn't.
> All utilities and energy suppliers in this country are totally
> the province of government or at the most, products of an unholy union
> between government and business. What we are seeing is exactly,
> precisely what was warned against in atlas shrugged. Read it again.

I didn't specify what it was that I saw she had "spawned." You presumed
much. Talk about spring loaded. Which brings me to what it actually
*was* I was referring to with "spawned". The personalities.

I should read Atlas Shrugged again? How about the bible? The Koran?
The Torah? The Book of Mormon? How about " Monetary History of the
United States 1867 1960" or "The Wealth of Nations."

Each and every one of these idealizations for human activity has spawned
hysterical, fanatical followers who have made the writers their personal
saviors and distorted the original message to fit their own fears,
preoccupations and urgency to be *right*. None, (especially Rand, IMO)
were Saints to begin with. The irony is that the more fanatical the
followers become the more they tend to evolve into exactly what their
heroes set out to protest. Especially (IMO), with economics but one
certainly has to give honorable mention to religious leaders who cry out
for killing in Gods name.

The book I found that made the most sense to me when trying to
understand the human merry go round was the 1973 Pulitzer Prize winner,
"Denial of Death" by Ernest Becker. If you scroll down to the reviews
you may understand why.

http://www.amazon.com/Denial-Death-E.../dp/0684832402
http://tinyurl.com/29wmtb

 

> I didn't specify what it was that I saw she had "spawned." You presumed
> much. Talk about spring loaded. Which brings me to what it actually
> *was* I was referring to with "spawned". The personalities.

"I liked Ayn Rand when I was 20, now I see what she has spawned and
its unsettling, to say the least." given context, I kinda figured you
meant the economic situation. Oops.

> I should read Atlas Shrugged again? How about the bible? The Koran?
> The Torah? The Book of Mormon? How about " Monetary History of the
> United States 1867 1960" or "The Wealth of Nations."

Perhaps you should read a few of those again. If for no other
reason than to see that for example, bin laden is right, the Koran
DOES say that. Or alternatively, Jerry Falwell was right, the bible
DOES say that. The problems come in when anyone takes any book as
other than the writings of a person and takes them as literal guiding
principles.

> Each and every one of these idealizations for human activity has spawned
> hysterical, fanatical followers who have made the writers their personal
> saviors and distorted the original message to fit their own fears,
> preoccupations and urgency to be *right*. None, (especially Rand, IMO)
> were Saints to begin with. The irony is that the more fanatical the
> followers become the more they tend to evolve into exactly what their
> heroes set out to protest. Especially (IMO), with economics but one
> certainly has to give honorable mention to religious leaders who cry out
> for killing in Gods name.

well... I haven't heard of very many people going out and
starting wars in the name of adam smith. "economics wills it" is a
tough battle cry. I don't say she was a saint, hell, most weren't
even good people. However, I think your statement that the more
fanatical devolve into what their founders opposed is flawed. The
randites rarely go into lobbying, the Muslim extremists seem to me to
do very well at following muhammeds teachings, and I know the
christian fundies do follow biblical teachings well enough. The books
really do say those things.

 

> I didn't specify what it was that I saw she had "spawned." You presumed
> much. Talk about spring loaded. Which brings me to what it actually
> *was* I was referring to with "spawned". The personalities.

"I liked Ayn Rand when I was 20, now I see what she has spawned and
its unsettling, to say the least." given context, I kinda figured you
meant the economic situation. Oops.

> I should read Atlas Shrugged again? How about the bible? The Koran?
> The Torah? The Book of Mormon? How about " Monetary History of the
> United States 1867 1960" or "The Wealth of Nations."

Perhaps you should read a few of those again. If for no other
reason than to see that for example, bin laden is right, the Koran
DOES say that. Or alternatively, Jerry Falwell was right, the bible
DOES say that. The problems come in when anyone takes any book as
other than the writings of a person and takes them as literal guiding
principles.

> Each and every one of these idealizations for human activity has spawned
> hysterical, fanatical followers who have made the writers their personal
> saviors and distorted the original message to fit their own fears,
> preoccupations and urgency to be *right*. None, (especially Rand, IMO)
> were Saints to begin with. The irony is that the more fanatical the
> followers become the more they tend to evolve into exactly what their
> heroes set out to protest. Especially (IMO), with economics but one
> certainly has to give honorable mention to religious leaders who cry out
> for killing in Gods name.

well... I haven't heard of very many people going out and
starting wars in the name of adam smith. "economics wills it" is a
tough battle cry. I don't say she was a saint, hell, most weren't
even good people. However, I think your statement that the more
fanatical devolve into what their founders opposed is flawed. The
randites rarely go into lobbying, the Muslim extremists seem to me to
do very well at following muhammeds teachings, and I know the
christian fundies do follow biblical teachings well enough. The books
really do say those things.

 

bill wrote:
>> I didn't specify what it was that I saw she had "spawned." You presumed
>> much. Talk about spring loaded. Which brings me to what it actually
>> *was* I was referring to with "spawned". The personalities.
>
> "I liked Ayn Rand when I was 20, now I see what she has spawned and
> its unsettling, to say the least." given context, I kinda figured you
> meant the economic situation. Oops.
>
>> I should read Atlas Shrugged again? How about the bible? The Koran?
>> The Torah? The Book of Mormon? How about " Monetary History of the
>> United States 1867 1960" or "The Wealth of Nations."
>
> Perhaps you should read a few of those again. If for no other
> reason than to see that for example, bin laden is right, the Koran
> DOES say that. Or alternatively, Jerry Falwell was right, the bible
> DOES say that. The problems come in when anyone takes any book as
> other than the writings of a person and takes them as literal guiding
> principles.

Exactly. My favorite word is inevitably and it fits in the "problems"
you point to above. Lets us not forget that in large part we are
dealing with either mythology or a purely subjective analysis and
projection based to a large extent on personal experience. Usually,
from a loooong time ago.

I have my own predetermined set of priorities and values and
"inevitably", upon 're-reading' I would simply project as others have
done. If I were dependent upon a highly charged two dimensional
perspective of good vs evil to keep going day to day I would surely have
gotten lost in at least *one* of those texts long ago, but alas, I
suspect that damn Danish farmer gene I inherited just acts as some sort
of governor. Not that I don't *see* villains, I do, but sometimes
they're not villains at all, just strike me as painfully slow (and thus
dangerous).

>> Each and every one of these idealizations for human activity has spawned
>> hysterical, fanatical followers who have made the writers their personal
>> saviors and distorted the original message to fit their own fears,
>> preoccupations and urgency to be *right*. None, (especially Rand, IMO)
>> were Saints to begin with. The irony is that the more fanatical the
>> followers become the more they tend to evolve into exactly what their
>> heroes set out to protest. Especially (IMO), with economics but one
>> certainly has to give honorable mention to religious leaders who cry out
>> for killing in Gods name.
>
> well... I haven't heard of very many people going out and
> starting wars in the name of adam smith. "economics wills it" is a
> tough battle cry.

Yes, it is a "tough battle cry." Maybe not so much it we call it
exporting democracy instead.

Scroll down to Editorial Reviews:
http://tinyurl.com/2o9qgh

> I don't say she was a saint, hell, most weren't even good people.

See..., the inevitable problem. Personal, subjective judgment of others.

> However, I think your statement that the more fanatical devolve into
> what their founders opposed is flawed. The randites rarely go into
> lobbying,

Au contraire, I have heard several promoting their beliefs on the radio
recently and having once signed up for a free trial of TIA Daily (The
Intellectual Activist) which seems to have morphed from basic Ayn Rand
philosophy into neo-con war hawks, I still get free samples and prompts
to subscribe two years later. I wonder, would Rand have hated Muslims
as much as she hated communists? She *did* IMO, seem to channel a good
deal of frustration and intolerance into her creative process.

> the Muslim extremists seem to me to do very well at following muhammeds
> teachings,

You single out the "extremists" which takes us back to the inevitable
subjective interpretations.

> and I know the christian fundies do follow biblical teachings well enough.

"Well enough" for whom? I sure see a lot of hustlers that are part pop
psychologists, part motivational speakers and part sky is the limit
wealth accumulators. And in the headlines we find a healthy dose of
sexual hypocrites who preach one thing and in private practice another.

Personally, I'd pay them no mind if they would just respect the
separation of church and state and stay out of politics.

> The books really do say those things.

And much more.

 

bill wrote:
>> I didn't specify what it was that I saw she had "spawned." You presumed
>> much. Talk about spring loaded. Which brings me to what it actually
>> *was* I was referring to with "spawned". The personalities.
>
> "I liked Ayn Rand when I was 20, now I see what she has spawned and
> its unsettling, to say the least." given context, I kinda figured you
> meant the economic situation. Oops.
>
>> I should read Atlas Shrugged again? How about the bible? The Koran?
>> The Torah? The Book of Mormon? How about " Monetary History of the
>> United States 1867 1960" or "The Wealth of Nations."
>
> Perhaps you should read a few of those again. If for no other
> reason than to see that for example, bin laden is right, the Koran
> DOES say that. Or alternatively, Jerry Falwell was right, the bible
> DOES say that. The problems come in when anyone takes any book as
> other than the writings of a person and takes them as literal guiding
> principles.

Exactly. My favorite word is inevitably and it fits in the "problems"
you point to above. Lets us not forget that in large part we are
dealing with either mythology or a purely subjective analysis and
projection based to a large extent on personal experience. Usually,
from a loooong time ago.

I have my own predetermined set of priorities and values and
"inevitably", upon 're-reading' I would simply project as others have
done. If I were dependent upon a highly charged two dimensional
perspective of good vs evil to keep going day to day I would surely have
gotten lost in at least *one* of those texts long ago, but alas, I
suspect that damn Danish farmer gene I inherited just acts as some sort
of governor. Not that I don't *see* villains, I do, but sometimes
they're not villains at all, just strike me as painfully slow (and thus
dangerous).

>> Each and every one of these idealizations for human activity has spawned
>> hysterical, fanatical followers who have made the writers their personal
>> saviors and distorted the original message to fit their own fears,
>> preoccupations and urgency to be *right*. None, (especially Rand, IMO)
>> were Saints to begin with. The irony is that the more fanatical the
>> followers become the more they tend to evolve into exactly what their
>> heroes set out to protest. Especially (IMO), with economics but one
>> certainly has to give honorable mention to religious leaders who cry out
>> for killing in Gods name.
>
> well... I haven't heard of very many people going out and
> starting wars in the name of adam smith. "economics wills it" is a
> tough battle cry.

Yes, it is a "tough battle cry." Maybe not so much it we call it
exporting democracy instead.

Scroll down to Editorial Reviews:
http://tinyurl.com/2o9qgh

> I don't say she was a saint, hell, most weren't even good people.

See..., the inevitable problem. Personal, subjective judgment of others.

> However, I think your statement that the more fanatical devolve into
> what their founders opposed is flawed. The randites rarely go into
> lobbying,

Au contraire, I have heard several promoting their beliefs on the radio
recently and having once signed up for a free trial of TIA Daily (The
Intellectual Activist) which seems to have morphed from basic Ayn Rand
philosophy into neo-con war hawks, I still get free samples and prompts
to subscribe two years later. I wonder, would Rand have hated Muslims
as much as she hated communists? She *did* IMO, seem to channel a good
deal of frustration and intolerance into her creative process.

> the Muslim extremists seem to me to do very well at following muhammeds
> teachings,

You single out the "extremists" which takes us back to the inevitable
subjective interpretations.

> and I know the christian fundies do follow biblical teachings well enough.

"Well enough" for whom? I sure see a lot of hustlers that are part pop
psychologists, part motivational speakers and part sky is the limit
wealth accumulators. And in the headlines we find a healthy dose of
sexual hypocrites who preach one thing and in private practice another.

Personally, I'd pay them no mind if they would just respect the
separation of church and state and stay out of politics.

> The books really do say those things.

And much more.

 

> >> I didn't specify what it was that I saw she had "spawned." You presumed
> >> much. Talk about spring loaded. Which brings me to what it actually
> >> *was* I was referring to with "spawned". The personalities.
> > "I liked Ayn Rand when I was 20, now I see what she has spawned and
> > its unsettling, to say the least." given context, I kinda figured you
> > meant the economic situation. Oops.
>
> >> I should read Atlas Shrugged again? How about the bible? The Koran?
> >> The Torah? The Book of Mormon? How about " Monetary History of the
> >> United States 1867 1960" or "The Wealth of Nations."
>
> > Perhaps you should read a few of those again. If for no other
> > reason than to see that for example, bin laden is right, the Koran
> > DOES say that. Or alternatively, Jerry Falwell was right, the bible
> > DOES say that. The problems come in when anyone takes any book as
> > other than the writings of a person and takes them as literal guiding
> > principles.
>
> Exactly. My favorite word is inevitably and it fits in the "problems"
> you point to above. Lets us not forget that in large part we are
> dealing with either mythology or a purely subjective analysis and
> projection based to a large extent on personal experience. Usually,
> from a loooong time ago.

thing is, it isn't inevitable. except when the authors try to
pass themselves off as holy prophets. It does however, REALLY help
when the authors do not say things like "kill the unbeliever wherever
you may find him" and "the sins of the father are visited to the tenth
generation" and "thou shalt not suffer a which to live". Those kinds
of sentences when delivered by one claiming to be a holy prophet have
more potential to be used to justify for example murder than for
example "greed is good" written in a novel.

> I have my own predetermined set of priorities and values and
> "inevitably", upon 're-reading' I would simply project as others have
> done. If I were dependent upon a highly charged two dimensional
> perspective of good vs evil to keep going day to day I would surely have
> gotten lost in at least *one* of those texts long ago, but alas, I
> suspect that damn Danish farmer gene I inherited just acts as some sort
> of governor. Not that I don't *see* villains, I do, but sometimes
> they're not villains at all, just strike me as painfully slow (and thus
> dangerous).

It is a painful fact that over 50% of the population have IQs
under 100.

> >> Each and every one of these idealizations for human activity has spawned
> >> hysterical, fanatical followers who have made the writers their personal
> >> saviors and distorted the original message to fit their own fears,
> >> preoccupations and urgency to be *right*. None, (especially Rand, IMO)
> >> were Saints to begin with. The irony is that the more fanatical the
> >> followers become the more they tend to evolve into exactly what their
> >> heroes set out to protest. Especially (IMO), with economics but one
> >> certainly has to give honorable mention to religious leaders who cry out
> >> for killing in Gods name.
>
> > well... I haven't heard of very many people going out and
> > starting wars in the name of adam smith. "economics wills it" is a
> > tough battle cry.
>
> Yes, it is a "tough battle cry." Maybe not so much it we call it
> exporting democracy instead.

Eh. That is different. More of a perversion of Jefferson than a
perversion of rand or smith. One thing that I believe has been put to
rest is the notion that the citizens of oppressed shitholes will
"welcome us with open arms". Nations have the governments their
citizens want.

> > I don't say she was a saint, hell, most weren't even good people.
> See..., the inevitable problem. Personal, subjective judgment of others.

Well, there is a real shortage of objective measurement systems
for the overall quality of character

> > However, I think your statement that the more fanatical devolve into
> > what their founders opposed is flawed. The randites rarely go into
> > lobbying,
>
> Au contraire, I have heard several promoting their beliefs on the radio
> recently and having once signed up for a free trial of TIA Daily (The
> Intellectual Activist) which seems to have morphed from basic Ayn Rand
> philosophy into neo-con war hawks, I still get free samples and prompts
> to subscribe two years later. I wonder, would Rand have hated Muslims
> as much as she hated communists? She *did* IMO, seem to channel a good
> deal of frustration and intolerance into her creative process.

Yes, yes she did. But then, remember that at the time she was
writing, her books were unwritten. There was no previous supporter
and champion of the robber barons The notion that "greed is good"
was revolutionary. Would she have disliked the islamofascists as much
as she disliked the commies, probably, and she probably held ***** in
equally low regard, for the simple reason that they ALL suppress the
individual, the muslims for god, and the ***** for race. Still no
different, all 3 have the inherent "you BELONG to (society, god,
race....)" which was so anethema.

> > the Muslim extremists seem to me to do very well at following muhammeds
> > teachings,
> You single out the "extremists" which takes us back to the inevitable
> subjective interpretations.

Well, I was using "extremists" in the commonly accepted usage,
meaning those who keep ALL of gods laws, including the one about
killing infidels. Rather than the "moderates" which select some laws
that they will conveniently forget about (ranging from merely
forgetting to kill infidels to forgetting.... basically the whole
book).

> > and I know the christian fundies do follow biblical teachings well enough.
>
> "Well enough" for whom? I sure see a lot of hustlers that are part pop
> psychologists, part motivational speakers and part sky is the limit
> wealth accumulators. And in the headlines we find a healthy dose of
> sexual hypocrites who preach one thing and in private practice another.

The hustlers are not the fundies I was looking for, although they
often sound very similar.

> Personally, I'd pay them no mind if they would just respect the
> separation of church and state and stay out of politics.

I would be happier if more corporations stayed out of politics
too. For example, why does "wendys" have an opinion about gun
control? Why does "wal-mart" choose to express it's dislike for birth
control? I could see it if it was in their interests, like the
million oracle paid bill clinton to go after microsoft, or the million
china gave him in campaign contributions in exchange for MIRV
technology, but when there is no correlation....

> > The books really do say those things.
> And much more.

Isn't it wonderful? People actually believe such total crap,
it's a wonder we aren't all dead yet.

 

> >> I didn't specify what it was that I saw she had "spawned." You presumed
> >> much. Talk about spring loaded. Which brings me to what it actually
> >> *was* I was referring to with "spawned". The personalities.
> > "I liked Ayn Rand when I was 20, now I see what she has spawned and
> > its unsettling, to say the least." given context, I kinda figured you
> > meant the economic situation. Oops.
>
> >> I should read Atlas Shrugged again? How about the bible? The Koran?
> >> The Torah? The Book of Mormon? How about " Monetary History of the
> >> United States 1867 1960" or "The Wealth of Nations."
>
> > Perhaps you should read a few of those again. If for no other
> > reason than to see that for example, bin laden is right, the Koran
> > DOES say that. Or alternatively, Jerry Falwell was right, the bible
> > DOES say that. The problems come in when anyone takes any book as
> > other than the writings of a person and takes them as literal guiding
> > principles.
>
> Exactly. My favorite word is inevitably and it fits in the "problems"
> you point to above. Lets us not forget that in large part we are
> dealing with either mythology or a purely subjective analysis and
> projection based to a large extent on personal experience. Usually,
> from a loooong time ago.

thing is, it isn't inevitable. except when the authors try to
pass themselves off as holy prophets. It does however, REALLY help
when the authors do not say things like "kill the unbeliever wherever
you may find him" and "the sins of the father are visited to the tenth
generation" and "thou shalt not suffer a which to live". Those kinds
of sentences when delivered by one claiming to be a holy prophet have
more potential to be used to justify for example murder than for
example "greed is good" written in a novel.

> I have my own predetermined set of priorities and values and
> "inevitably", upon 're-reading' I would simply project as others have
> done. If I were dependent upon a highly charged two dimensional
> perspective of good vs evil to keep going day to day I would surely have
> gotten lost in at least *one* of those texts long ago, but alas, I
> suspect that damn Danish farmer gene I inherited just acts as some sort
> of governor. Not that I don't *see* villains, I do, but sometimes
> they're not villains at all, just strike me as painfully slow (and thus
> dangerous).

It is a painful fact that over 50% of the population have IQs
under 100.

> >> Each and every one of these idealizations for human activity has spawned
> >> hysterical, fanatical followers who have made the writers their personal
> >> saviors and distorted the original message to fit their own fears,
> >> preoccupations and urgency to be *right*. None, (especially Rand, IMO)
> >> were Saints to begin with. The irony is that the more fanatical the
> >> followers become the more they tend to evolve into exactly what their
> >> heroes set out to protest. Especially (IMO), with economics but one
> >> certainly has to give honorable mention to religious leaders who cry out
> >> for killing in Gods name.
>
> > well... I haven't heard of very many people going out and
> > starting wars in the name of adam smith. "economics wills it" is a
> > tough battle cry.
>
> Yes, it is a "tough battle cry." Maybe not so much it we call it
> exporting democracy instead.

Eh. That is different. More of a perversion of Jefferson than a
perversion of rand or smith. One thing that I believe has been put to
rest is the notion that the citizens of oppressed shitholes will
"welcome us with open arms". Nations have the governments their
citizens want.

> > I don't say she was a saint, hell, most weren't even good people.
> See..., the inevitable problem. Personal, subjective judgment of others.

Well, there is a real shortage of objective measurement systems
for the overall quality of character

> > However, I think your statement that the more fanatical devolve into
> > what their founders opposed is flawed. The randites rarely go into
> > lobbying,
>
> Au contraire, I have heard several promoting their beliefs on the radio
> recently and having once signed up for a free trial of TIA Daily (The
> Intellectual Activist) which seems to have morphed from basic Ayn Rand
> philosophy into neo-con war hawks, I still get free samples and prompts
> to subscribe two years later. I wonder, would Rand have hated Muslims
> as much as she hated communists? She *did* IMO, seem to channel a good
> deal of frustration and intolerance into her creative process.

Yes, yes she did. But then, remember that at the time she was
writing, her books were unwritten. There was no previous supporter
and champion of the robber barons The notion that "greed is good"
was revolutionary. Would she have disliked the islamofascists as much
as she disliked the commies, probably, and she probably held ***** in
equally low regard, for the simple reason that they ALL suppress the
individual, the muslims for god, and the ***** for race. Still no
different, all 3 have the inherent "you BELONG to (society, god,
race....)" which was so anethema.

> > the Muslim extremists seem to me to do very well at following muhammeds
> > teachings,
> You single out the "extremists" which takes us back to the inevitable
> subjective interpretations.

Well, I was using "extremists" in the commonly accepted usage,
meaning those who keep ALL of gods laws, including the one about
killing infidels. Rather than the "moderates" which select some laws
that they will conveniently forget about (ranging from merely
forgetting to kill infidels to forgetting.... basically the whole
book).

> > and I know the christian fundies do follow biblical teachings well enough.
>
> "Well enough" for whom? I sure see a lot of hustlers that are part pop
> psychologists, part motivational speakers and part sky is the limit
> wealth accumulators. And in the headlines we find a healthy dose of
> sexual hypocrites who preach one thing and in private practice another.

The hustlers are not the fundies I was looking for, although they
often sound very similar.

> Personally, I'd pay them no mind if they would just respect the
> separation of church and state and stay out of politics.

I would be happier if more corporations stayed out of politics
too. For example, why does "wendys" have an opinion about gun
control? Why does "wal-mart" choose to express it's dislike for birth
control? I could see it if it was in their interests, like the
million oracle paid bill clinton to go after microsoft, or the million
china gave him in campaign contributions in exchange for MIRV
technology, but when there is no correlation....

> > The books really do say those things.
> And much more.

Isn't it wonderful? People actually believe such total crap,
it's a wonder we aren't all dead yet.

 

> I have my own predetermined set of priorities and values and
> "inevitably", upon 're-reading' I would simply project as others have
> done. If I were dependent upon a highly charged two dimensional
> perspective of good vs evil to keep going day to day I would surely have
> gotten lost in at least *one* of those texts long ago, but alas, I
> suspect that damn Danish farmer gene I inherited just acts as some sort
> of governor. Not that I don't *see* villains, I do, but sometimes
> they're not villains at all, just strike me as painfully slow (and thus
> dangerous).

For the record, I generally view reading a book as a chance to
see what the author was saying. Not as an opportunity to have my mind
changed I will then often alter my opinions to fit the new data
Sometimes the writings of an author will shed light on a situation,
for example, the chain of events in "atlas shrugged" are fairly
clearly taking place (the mixing of government and business with bad
results, not the geniuses retreating to the valley) That was all I was
talking about when I suggested rereading it, it was specifically
applicable. Examples of the undesirability of the mixing include but
are not limited to: Enron, Halliburton, ALL utilities, FEMA contracts
(basically all of them), blackwater, all insurance companies, the
American Bar Association, and the mortgage crisis. no bluffin, you
gotta keep em separated.

 

> I have my own predetermined set of priorities and values and
> "inevitably", upon 're-reading' I would simply project as others have
> done. If I were dependent upon a highly charged two dimensional
> perspective of good vs evil to keep going day to day I would surely have
> gotten lost in at least *one* of those texts long ago, but alas, I
> suspect that damn Danish farmer gene I inherited just acts as some sort
> of governor. Not that I don't *see* villains, I do, but sometimes
> they're not villains at all, just strike me as painfully slow (and thus
> dangerous).

For the record, I generally view reading a book as a chance to
see what the author was saying. Not as an opportunity to have my mind
changed I will then often alter my opinions to fit the new data
Sometimes the writings of an author will shed light on a situation,
for example, the chain of events in "atlas shrugged" are fairly
clearly taking place (the mixing of government and business with bad
results, not the geniuses retreating to the valley) That was all I was
talking about when I suggested rereading it, it was specifically
applicable. Examples of the undesirability of the mixing include but
are not limited to: Enron, Halliburton, ALL utilities, FEMA contracts
(basically all of them), blackwater, all insurance companies, the
American Bar Association, and the mortgage crisis. no bluffin, you
gotta keep em separated.

 

On Oct 27, 7:50 am, "n5hsr" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Yes, the "liberal left" owns most of the media in this country. You see it
> in the blame game already starting up about how Bush is responsible for the
> California wildfires. I've been fighting the loony liberal left's lies
> since 1970, WTF have you been doing? And they have practically anointed
> Hillary the next Prasident and Reich Chancellor, or is that Party Secretary?

Here's your loony liberal left and their Bush bashing:

America Could Have Killed Usama bin Laden - But Didn't
Tuesday , October 23, 2007
By Col. David Hunt

Because there is no shortage of things to yell about regarding the
War
on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and so on, deciding
what to write about is always fun.


This week, I was going to yell about how the Bush administration
leaked classified information - again - but we've been there before.
Then, I thought I might write about Blackwater, but compared to so
many things, Blackwater looks like back water.


I bet the few of you that read this stuff thought I would write about
my short stint in the sights of those who complained or used my
column
last week for their own purposes. Nah, it ain't going to happen.
Those
who were yelling or using me on their TV shows - without bringing me
on to comment - are hardly worth the print space. I am not that big a
deal. Besides, these things are of little consequence when you
realize
how we missed, squandered, screwed up, made a mess of and were
massively risk adverse - again - when we did not kill Usama bin Laden
in Afghanistan just two short months ago.


We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty - which is huge in the
world of intelligence - that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a
convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on
satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world's
best hunters/killers - Seal Team 6 - nearby. We had the world class
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and
other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on
their
wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one
on
the . We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job
again guys - now, pull the damn trigger.


Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama
bin
Laden.


You cannot make this crap up; truth is always stranger and more
telling than fiction. Our government, the current administration and
yes, our military leaders included, failed to kill bin Laden for no
other reason than incompetence.


The current "boneheads" in charge will tell you all day long that we
are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop terrorists
there so they do not come here. Nice talk, how about - just for a
moment - acting like you mean what you say? You know walk the walk.
These incidents, where we displayed a total lack of guts, like the
one
in August, are just too prevalent. The United States of America's
political and military leadership has, on at least three separate
occasions, chosen not capture or kill bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri.
We have allowed Pakistan to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. We have
allowed Al Qaeda to reconstitute, partially because of money they (Al
Qaeda in Iraq) have been sending to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.


We are in a war with terrorists. We are in a war with countries that
support terrorists. We are in a war with people that fly planes into
buildings and who never, ever hesitate to pull the trigger when given
the chance to kill us. We cannot win and, I will tell you this now,
we
are losing this war every damn time we fail to take every single
opportunity to kill murderers like Usama bin Laden. Less than two
months ago, we lost again.


Our men and women are being blown up and killed every day in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Every family who is separated from a loved one during
this war is being insulted by our government when they fail to kill
those who have already killed us and will not hesitate to do so again
and again. Damn it guys, PULL THE DAMN TRIGGER.


Colonel David Hunt, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a FOX News military analyst
and the author of the New York Times bestseller They Just Don't Get
It. He has extensive operational experience in counterterrorism,
special operations, and intelligence operations. He has trained the
FBI and Special Forces in counterterrorism tactics, served as the
security adviser to six different Olympic Games, testified as an
expert at many major trials, and lectured at the CIA, the
FBI, and the National Security Agency. You can read his complete bio
here.

Copyright 2007 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html

 

On Oct 27, 7:50 am, "n5hsr" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Yes, the "liberal left" owns most of the media in this country. You see it
> in the blame game already starting up about how Bush is responsible for the
> California wildfires. I've been fighting the loony liberal left's lies
> since 1970, WTF have you been doing? And they have practically anointed
> Hillary the next Prasident and Reich Chancellor, or is that Party Secretary?

Here's your loony liberal left and their Bush bashing:

America Could Have Killed Usama bin Laden - But Didn't
Tuesday , October 23, 2007
By Col. David Hunt

Because there is no shortage of things to yell about regarding the
War
on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and so on, deciding
what to write about is always fun.


This week, I was going to yell about how the Bush administration
leaked classified information - again - but we've been there before.
Then, I thought I might write about Blackwater, but compared to so
many things, Blackwater looks like back water.


I bet the few of you that read this stuff thought I would write about
my short stint in the sights of those who complained or used my
column
last week for their own purposes. Nah, it ain't going to happen.
Those
who were yelling or using me on their TV shows - without bringing me
on to comment - are hardly worth the print space. I am not that big a
deal. Besides, these things are of little consequence when you
realize
how we missed, squandered, screwed up, made a mess of and were
massively risk adverse - again - when we did not kill Usama bin Laden
in Afghanistan just two short months ago.


We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty - which is huge in the
world of intelligence - that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a
convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on
satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world's
best hunters/killers - Seal Team 6 - nearby. We had the world class
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and
other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on
their
wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one
on
the . We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job
again guys - now, pull the damn trigger.


Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama
bin
Laden.


You cannot make this crap up; truth is always stranger and more
telling than fiction. Our government, the current administration and
yes, our military leaders included, failed to kill bin Laden for no
other reason than incompetence.


The current "boneheads" in charge will tell you all day long that we
are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop terrorists
there so they do not come here. Nice talk, how about - just for a
moment - acting like you mean what you say? You know walk the walk.
These incidents, where we displayed a total lack of guts, like the
one
in August, are just too prevalent. The United States of America's
political and military leadership has, on at least three separate
occasions, chosen not capture or kill bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri.
We have allowed Pakistan to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. We have
allowed Al Qaeda to reconstitute, partially because of money they (Al
Qaeda in Iraq) have been sending to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.


We are in a war with terrorists. We are in a war with countries that
support terrorists. We are in a war with people that fly planes into
buildings and who never, ever hesitate to pull the trigger when given
the chance to kill us. We cannot win and, I will tell you this now,
we
are losing this war every damn time we fail to take every single
opportunity to kill murderers like Usama bin Laden. Less than two
months ago, we lost again.


Our men and women are being blown up and killed every day in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Every family who is separated from a loved one during
this war is being insulted by our government when they fail to kill
those who have already killed us and will not hesitate to do so again
and again. Damn it guys, PULL THE DAMN TRIGGER.


Colonel David Hunt, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a FOX News military analyst
and the author of the New York Times bestseller They Just Don't Get
It. He has extensive operational experience in counterterrorism,
special operations, and intelligence operations. He has trained the
FBI and Special Forces in counterterrorism tactics, served as the
security adviser to six different Olympic Games, testified as an
expert at many major trials, and lectured at the CIA, the
FBI, and the National Security Agency. You can read his complete bio
here.

Copyright 2007 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html

 

"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1193853672.931288.116140@50g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 27, 7:50 am, "n5hsr" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the "liberal left" owns most of the media in this country. You see
>> it
>> in the blame game already starting up about how Bush is responsible for
>> the
>> California wildfires. I've been fighting the loony liberal left's lies
>> since 1970, WTF have you been doing? And they have practically anointed
>> Hillary the next Prasident and Reich Chancellor, or is that Party
>> Secretary?
>
> Here's your loony liberal left and their Bush bashing:

You think Colonel Hunt is a loony? Why do you think so?

 

"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1193853672.931288.116140@50g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 27, 7:50 am, "n5hsr" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the "liberal left" owns most of the media in this country. You see
>> it
>> in the blame game already starting up about how Bush is responsible for
>> the
>> California wildfires. I've been fighting the loony liberal left's lies
>> since 1970, WTF have you been doing? And they have practically anointed
>> Hillary the next Prasident and Reich Chancellor, or is that Party
>> Secretary?
>
> Here's your loony liberal left and their Bush bashing:

You think Colonel Hunt is a loony? Why do you think so?