It's official. We have reached the tipping point

[JustRalph]

http://bit.ly/1aJWvQn

More takers than makers

[Let's Roll]

Fundamental change, indeed. My Founding Fathers worst nightmare.

[rastajenk]

What a beating Romney took for being, for the most part, right.

[mostpost]

http://bit.ly/1aJWvQn

More takers than makers
This is almost as silly as the idea that Obama is sitting in the Oval Office designing headwear for the Marines. And quite a bit more deceitful. First, let's look at the allegation that 108,592,000 individuals are receiving means tested cash benefits. That figure comes from the Census Bureau, but if we go to where the Census Bureau gives us that figure we find a footnote that tells us the 108,592,000 figure includes all persons living in a household where one or more pieces receives benefits.

If we have a household with a parent and three minor children, the census bureau says that four people are receiving benefits. Yet there is no way those three minor children can be makers. Also, that parent may have a full time job yet be eligible for food stamps because he does not earn enough money. Is that parent a maker or a taker? The article treats all people receiving means tested cash benefits the same even though there may be a vast difference in the amount of the benefit and the percentage of their living expenses that they pay themselves.

The there is the matter of comparing those receiving means tested cash benefits only with full time workers. There are 42.5 million part time workers who contribute to society. By definition part time workers can work up to 35 hours a week. Yet this typically phony story from Breitbart and CNS ignores them.

[newtothegame]

This is almost as silly as the idea that Obama is sitting in the Oval Office designing headwear for the Marines. And quite a bit more deceitful. First, let's look at the allegation that 108,592,000 individuals are receiving means tested cash benefits. That figure comes from the Census Bureau, but if we go to where the Census Bureau gives us that figure we find a footnote that tells us the 108,592,000 figure includes all persons living in a household where one or more pieces receives benefits.

If we have a household with a parent and three minor children, the census bureau says that four people are receiving benefits. Yet there is no way those three minor children can be makers. Also, that parent may have a full time job yet be eligible for food stamps because he does not earn enough money. Is that parent a maker or a taker? The article treats all people receiving means tested cash benefits the same even though there may be a vast difference in the amount of the benefit and the percentage of their living expenses that they pay themselves.

The there is the matter of comparing those receiving means tested cash benefits only with full time workers. There are 42.5 million part time workers who contribute to society. By definition part time workers can work up to 35 hours a week. Yet this typically phony story from Breitbart and CNS ignores them.

So, without debating the merits of the story, I will just so yay! It seems we both agree the government is deceitful with their "numbers".
Now that you have agreed, stop telling us all how the government is the way to go...(by your own admission of deceit).

[HUSKER55]

THIS OTTA BE GOOD....

[delayjf]

This is almost as silly as the idea that Obama is sitting in the Oval Office designing headwear for the Marines.

I never said he designed the hat, but I'm sure he was shown some ideas and he picked the one he liked - probably between holes on the Golf course.

[classhandicapper]

Sure, lets argue about a few trees when the whole forest is on fire. :bang:

There's almost no question that if you give something to someone, there is a tendency for some to build their life around the assumption that it will continue.

There's no question that it's close to impossible politically to cut something once people become dependent on it.

There's no question that if you promise to give someone something for nothing or say that the other guy wants to take it away they will tend to vote for you.

Do you really need an IQ higher than a turnip to see where this is going as we keep heading towards the tipping point?

[fast4522]

It is almost silly to think that some day someone will vow to undo everything that Obama has done, but someday it too will happen when everything during his two terms are reversed.

[Robert Goren]

It is almost silly to think that some day someone will vow to undo everything that Obama has done, but someday it too will happen when everything during his two terms are reversed.So they are going to resurrect bin Laden?

[HUSKER55]

how does anyone know for sure? I think it is a media snow job.

[fast4522]

What have you done for me today Robert Goren, because nobody gives a rats ass what you did yesterday. Promise too much and delver on only 90 % of what was promised, is a realistic outcome. Lower taxes and lower health care will have to be part of the equation, and then your fellow Americans will gladly push you off the cliff in droves. It is not rocket science getting job growth twice or three times of what it is today, ditching socialistic policy will accomplish much of the task. Yes we are in this mess today just because what you believe in has soured the job markets. I do think that you will get to see it, but not all will enjoy getting up every day early.

[LottaKash]

Do you really need an IQ higher than a turnip to see where this is going as we keep heading towards the tipping point?

History is replete with this very scenario, and "they" didn't get it either, until it was way too late....It won't change, I don't think , for a very long, long time...Hell it is only just beginning.....

[mostpost]

So, without debating the merits of the story, I will just so yay! It seems we both agree the government is deceitful with their "numbers".
Now that you have agreed, stop telling us all how the government is the way to go...(by your own admission of deceit).
You clearly did not understand my post. There was nothing wrong with the numbers provided by the government. The problem was with the way the MacIver studied interpreted them.

[mostpost]

I never said he designed the hat, but I'm sure he was shown some ideas and he picked the one he liked - probably between holes on the Golf course.
Obama didn't design the hat. He didn't look at samples. He didn't pick the one he liked or the one he disliked. Chances are Obama has never even thought about Marine headgear. I am flabbergasted that anyone would think that a President would get involved in such a thing. I guess that's what they mean when they call Marines Jarheads. :lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

Obama didn't design the hat. He didn't look at samples. He didn't pick the one he liked or the one he disliked. Chances are Obama has never even thought about Marine headgear. I am flabbergasted that anyone would think that a President would get involved in such a thing. I guess that's what they mean when they call Marines Jarheads. :lol:

I really think/hope you're right on this one. Now if Jimmy Carter were still president, I'd disagree with you.

[mostpost]

Sure, lets argue about a few trees when the whole forest is on fire. :bang:

There's almost no question that if you give something to someone, there is a tendency for some to build their life around the assumption that it will continue.

There's no question that it's close to impossible politically to cut something once people become dependent on it.

There's no question that if you promise to give someone something for nothing or say that the other guy wants to take it away they will tend to vote for you.

Do you really need an IQ higher than a turnip to see where this is going as we keep heading towards the tipping point?
You are making an assumption which shows the difference between a conservative and a liberal.

The conservative assumes that everyone-except him of course-is lazy and unmotivated and wants the world handed to him on a silver platter. The conservative does not accept the fact that outside factors can influence a persons circumstances and just working hard is not always going to change things. This is a very negative view of the world.

The liberal believes in a positive image of mankind. He believes the most people do not want handouts: most people will do what the job requires and more. He believes that people would rather work than go on welfare; would rather earn enough money to feed their family than use food stamps. But the liberal also believes that such programs should be available to those who need them.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The liberal believes in a positive image of mankind. He believes the most people do not want handouts: most people will do what the job requires and more. He believes that people would rather work than go on welfare; would rather earn enough money to feed their family than use food stamps. But the liberal also believes that such programs should be available to those who need them.

...and the liberal never seems to grasp the law of intended consequences of their "good" deed.

[sandpit]

Obama didn't design the hat. He didn't look at samples. He didn't pick the one he liked or the one he disliked. Chances are Obama has never even thought about Marine headgear. I am flabbergasted that anyone would think that a President would get involved in such a thing. I guess that's what they mean when they call Marines Jarheads. :lol:

Well, that's really about enough...just like anyone should be flabbergasted that chief petty officer Obama would stick his nose in things like that mega-over-hyped Trayvon Martin nonsense, reveling in his theories on the college football playoff system, or going on the tv late-night talk show circuit...ask presidential, for God's sake.

Yesterday I went to the funeral of a relative who was a marine. As an aside, I have never been in the military. At the grave site there were three young marines, I would imagine it is called an honor guard, but I'm not sure. One of them played Taps on the bugle, while the other two removed and folded the flag with meticulous precision, then gently handed it to my great aunt, expressing their condolences with great tenderness. It was very moving.

Call them Jarheads or whatever derisive name you want, but I can guarantee you I'll never see any of those "needy" lifelong welfare mamas, hood-dwelling crack dealers or community organizers you liberals love to prop up providing any similar service to their fellow citizens.

[Clocker]

chief petty officer Obama

CPO? Last I heard he was a corpseman. :eek:

[Ocala Mike]

Call them Jarheads or whatever derisive name you want, but I can guarantee you I'll never see any of those "needy" lifelong welfare mamas, hood-dwelling crack dealers or community organizers you liberals love to prop up providing any similar service to their fellow citizens.



All too often, a lot of these guys get out of the service so damaged, mentally and physically, that they require services themselves. At that point, they are relegated to the pile labeled "takers" by the "makers." I will prop them up gladly.

[rastajenk]

The liberal believes in a positive image of mankind.Then how do you account for all the nanny-state directives telling people how to live their lives because they're too stupid to do the right thing on their own? That's not a very positive image.

How about gun control vs. responsible gun ownership?

What about liberal environmentalists? They practically hate mankind.

I think you're sadly mistaken.

[tucker6]

All too often, a lot of these guys get out of the service so damaged, mentally and physically, that they require services themselves. At that point, they are relegated to the pile labeled "takers" by the "makers." I will prop them up gladly.
care to cite real stats on this fantasy quote of yours?

[LottaKash]

The liberal believes in a positive image of mankind. He believes the most people do not want handouts: most people will do what the job requires and more. He believes that people would rather work than go on welfare; would rather earn enough money to feed their family than use food stamps. But the liberal also believes that such programs should be available to those who need them.

Sounds like some droning dogmatics out of Chaiman Mao's "Little Red Book".....

[Ocala Mike]

Are you saying there are no veterans in need of the social safety net, including food stamps, that is being undercut at every turn by House Republicans?

[newtothegame]

Are you saying there are no veterans in need of the social safety net, including food stamps, that is being undercut at every turn by House Republicans?
No one said "no" veterans.......
You were the one who made the claim that "All too often, a lot of these guys get out of the service so damaged, mentally and physically, that they require services themselves".

[Clocker]

Then how do you account for all the nanny-state directives telling people how to live their lives because they're too stupid to do the right thing on their own? That's not a very positive image.

This is discussed in the book "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles" by Thomas Sowell. He says that a major difference between liberals and conservatives is their vision of human nature.

Conservatives tend to believe in a "constrained" vision of human nature, one that is enduring and self-centered, but capable of working together for mutual benefit. Liberals tend to believe in an "unconstrained" vision of human nature, one that is malleable and perfectible.

So naturally, if human nature is perfectible, someone has to decide what "perfection" looks like, and the more perfect have to lead the less perfect to the top of the mountain. Whether they like it or not. (This last is my summation, not Sowell's)

[hcap]

This is discussed in the book "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles" by Thomas Sowell. He says that a major difference between liberals and conservatives is their vision of human nature.

Conservatives tend to believe in a "constrained" vision of human nature, one that is enduring and self-centered, but capable of working together for mutual benefit. Liberals tend to believe in an "unconstrained" vision of human nature, one that is malleable and perfectible.

So naturally, if human nature is perfectible, someone has to decide what "perfection" looks like, and the more perfect have to lead the less perfect to the top of the mountain. Whether they like it or not. (This last is my summation, not Sowell's)Sowell blows smoke "Liberals tend to believe in an "unconstrained" vision of human nature, one that is malleable and perfectible."

So the implication is Wesley Mouch*** can then manipulate all them malleable and perfectible poor slob' liberal takers, low information voters. Thomas Sowell is just echoing Atlas Shrugged. I thought you were not an Objectivist? :lol:

Wesley Mouch***

The incompetent and treacherous lobbyist whom Hank Rearden reluctantly employs in Washington, who rises to prominence and authority throughout the novel through trading favours and disloyalty. In return for betraying Hank by helping broker the Equalization of Opportunity Bill (which, by restricting the number of businesses each person may own to one, forces Hank to divest most of his companies), he is given a senior position at the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. Later in the novel he becomes its Top Co-ordinator, a position that eventually becomes Economic Dictator of the country.
:cool:

[Let's Roll]

This is discussed in the book "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles" by Thomas Sowell. He says that a major difference between liberals and conservatives is their vision of human nature.

Conservatives tend to believe in a "constrained" vision of human nature, one that is enduring and self-centered, but capable of working together for mutual benefit. Liberals tend to believe in an "unconstrained" vision of human nature, one that is malleable and perfectible.

So naturally, if human nature is perfectible, someone has to decide what "perfection" looks like, and the more perfect have to lead the less perfect to the top of the mountain. Whether they like it or not. (This last is my summation, not Sowell's)
Great post, deserves a thread of it's own.

[JustRalph]

The liberal believes in a positive image of mankind. He believes the most people do not want handouts: most people will do what the job requires and more. He believes that people would rather work than go on welfare; would rather earn enough money to feed their family than use food stamps. But the liberal also believes that such programs should be available to those who need them.

Spend ten years as a cop and you would know the truth. I am told by many old timers that it's a generational thing. That until the 70's things were different.

Your view of the world was correct prior to the 70's. At least that's what I have been told. I was a cop on the west coast (California) and in the middle of the country (Ohio) I have also spent several years in Hospital Security. Nothing you mention above could be further from the truth. Especially in my last job in MD. Just outside Baltimore.

I also worked 911 in Charlotte. I saw nothing of the world you envision. Nothing like it

I have lived it. I know what's real.

[jballscalls]

Spend ten years as a cop and you would know the truth. I am told by many old timers that it's a generational thing. That until the 70's things were different.

Your view of the world was correct prior to the 70's. At least that's what I have been told. I was a cop on the west coast (California) and in the middle of the country (Ohio) I have also spent several years in Hospital Security. Nothing you mention above could be further from the truth. Especially in my last job in MD. Just outside Baltimore.

I also worked 911 in Charlotte. I saw nothing of the world you envision. Nothing like it

I have lived it. I know what's real.

You would know the truth according to your experiences. We all form our opinions and politics based off our experiences and what we see/learn, but I think it's important to remember that those are just your experiences and don't necessarily speak to the experiences of others and doesn't mean they are hard truths.

I'd be willing to guess that had MostPost had your experiences he may well have had similar reactions and subsequent ideologies about things, or more likely he would have probably thought that the people's surroundings and the power structures have effected the people more so than their personal choices.

[jballscalls]

The liberal believes in a positive image of mankind. He believes the most people do not want handouts: most people will do what the job requires and more. He believes that people would rather work than go on welfare; would rather earn enough money to feed their family than use food stamps. But the liberal also believes that such programs should be available to those who need them.

I think most conservatives believe things like welfare, disability etc should be available, but I think they have a different line of "who needs them."

I've known some people who are on disability who are more than capable of working. I don't pretend to know what's going on in someone's life or their head, but it looks kind of bad when they seem entirely mentally and physically capable but don't want to work. Jeff The Drunk from the Howard Stern show a perfect example.

[mostpost]

Spend ten years as a cop and you would know the truth. I am told by many old timers that it's a generational thing. That until the 70's things were different.

Your view of the world was correct prior to the 70's. At least that's what I have been told. I was a cop on the west coast (California) and in the middle of the country (Ohio) I have also spent several years in Hospital Security. Nothing you mention above could be further from the truth. Especially in my last job in MD. Just outside Baltimore.

I also worked 911 in Charlotte. I saw nothing of the world you envision. Nothing like it

I have lived it. I know what's real.
When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And when you're a cop, by the nature of the job, you see the dregs of society. I don't deny the dregs exist, I just don't think they are as prevalent as you do,

[JustRalph]

I think most conservatives believe things like welfare, disability etc should be available, but I think they have a different line of "who needs them."


correct.

Btw, in reference to your post on my "experiences" they are the same in several different locations in this country. There were very few geographical factors, but mostly the same from one end of the country to another. Which is why I find them valid indicators of what the country is like.

[Clocker]

Thomas Sowell is just echoing Atlas Shrugged.


Have you read either? Sowell is a scholar. Atlas Shrugged is a step above a graphic novel.

Your intuitive powers are awesome. From a single sentence summarizing a single concept of Sowell, you are able to conclude that his work is derivative of Rand. I am impressed.

[jballscalls]

correct.

Btw, in reference to your post on my "experiences" they are the same in several different locations in this country. There were very few geographical factors, but mostly the same from one end of the country to another. Which is why I find them valid indicators of what the country is like.

I understand. I've had similar experiences and it's often difficult to try and be open minded when you get smacked in the face with example after example. Maybe i'm in denial LOL

[thaskalos]

This is discussed in the book "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles" by Thomas Sowell. He says that a major difference between liberals and conservatives is their vision of human nature.

Conservatives tend to believe in a "constrained" vision of human nature, one that is enduring and self-centered, but capable of working together for mutual benefit. Liberals tend to believe in an "unconstrained" vision of human nature, one that is malleable and perfectible.

So naturally, if human nature is perfectible, someone has to decide what "perfection" looks like, and the more perfect have to lead the less perfect to the top of the mountain. Whether they like it or not. (This last is my summation, not Sowell's)
With all due respect to Sowell...I like Tom's definition better:

A "conservative" is the responsible individual who respects both himself and his country, and who pulls his sleeves up and goes to work in order to get what he and his family need to live their lives.

A "liberal", on the other hand, is the contemptible freeloader who lies on the couch all day instead of getting a job...while keeping an eye out for the mailman, who is delivering to him a government check.

[Mike at A+]

With all due respect to Sowell...I like Tom's definition better:

A "conservative" is the responsible individual who respects both himself and his country, and who pulls his sleeves up and goes to work in order to get what he and his family need to live their lives.

A "liberal", on the other hand, is the contemptible freeloader who lies on the couch all day instead of getting a job...while keeping an eye out for the mailman, who is delivering to him a government check.
I would add one sentence to BOTH of those definitions ...
And those who support that notion.

[Clocker]

A "liberal", on the other hand, is the contemptible freeloader who lies on the couch all day instead of getting a job...while keeping an eye out for the mailman, who is delivering to him a government check.

The people you describe are apolitical, and are making rational short term decisions for themselves. Their decisions are not based on a vision of human nature, but they are based on self-interest.

The liberals are the enablers who believe that these people can be improved with guidance and economic help, and by making decisions for them. Liberals believe that if you make decisions for people, that will somehow teach them to make correct decisions for themselves.

[thaskalos]

The people you describe are apolitical, and are making rational short term decisions for themselves. Their decisions are not based on a vision of human nature, but they are based on self-interest.

The liberals are the enablers who believe that these people can be improved with guidance and economic help, and by making decisions for them. Liberals believe that if you make decisions for people, that will somehow teach them to make correct decisions for themselves.
Here the problem with politics...as I see it:

The political candidates promise "change", in order to get elected...but once they get elected, then their main objective becomes to get RE-ELECTED...and their initial promises for "real change" go out the window.

Limit all the politicians to only one term in office...and then there might be some hope...

[newtothegame]

Here the problem with politics...as I see it:

The political candidates promise "change", in order to get elected...but once they get elected, then their main objective becomes to get RE-ELECTED...and their initial promises for "real change" go out the window.

Limit all the politicians to only one term in office...and then there might be some hope...
I almost agree...I said two terms (here previously). My reasoning for two is it takes time to even figure out what youre doing in Washington in some cases. Plus, the senate has different terms in length then that of the house. There would be a distinct advantage. I would suggest all terms be made the same in length. But yes, I am all for limits on terms.....
Next, we need to seriously look at political contributions.....:bang:

[porchy44]

What took you so long ? Its only been 20+ years.

At least a quarter of American workers are in low-wage jobs and nearly 40 percent of US families have incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level.

[newtothegame]

What took you so long ? Its only been 20+ years.

At least a quarter of American workers are in low-wage jobs and nearly 40 percent of US families have incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level.
Yep, got to love the end results of Nafta!!! Along with other trade agreements....

[jballscalls]

With all due respect to Sowell...I like Tom's definition better:

A "conservative" is the responsible individual who respects both himself and his country, and who pulls his sleeves up and goes to work in order to get what he and his family need to live their lives.

A "liberal", on the other hand, is the contemptible freeloader who lies on the couch all day instead of getting a job...while keeping an eye out for the mailman, who is delivering to him a government check.

this might be the biggest crock i've ever read on this board.

[thaskalos]

this might be the biggest crock i've ever read on this board.
Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger. :)

[jballscalls]

Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger. :)

haha!!

I just get upset when people make such broad generalizing comments. Especially when they're false because of the generalizations. Individual examples sure, but it's dangerous to make such broad sweeping statements. Comments like those do exactly what the right accuse Obama of, they divide us

[hcap]

Atlas Shrugged is a step above a graphic novel.
Well at least we agree one one thing. :lol:

But the problem is Sowells' vision of the so-called Liberal. It is very close to as I said earlier your Objectivist buddies use of the flawed maker/taker model. And that of course leads to "Wesley Mouch" The evil manipulator of the malleable masses.

[Clocker]

But the problem is Sowells' vision of the so-called Liberal.

And you know this from reading Sowell?

Sowell didn't give a "vision of the so-called Liberal", he gave a description of people with an "unconstrained" vision of human nature, and said that people with that vision tend to be liberals. I suggest you read the book before you critique it.

[hcap]

And you know this from reading Sowell?

Sowell didn't give a "vision of the so-called Liberal", he gave a description of people with an "unconstrained" vision of human nature, and said that people with that vision tend to be liberals. I suggest you read the book before you critique it.The following is enough for any critical thinker to spot the influence of Ayn Rand on Sowell. Unless you grossly fabricated Sowells' views and you are the roaring Objectivist of course. You and/or Sowell had enough rope to hang yourselves. This is discussed in the book "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles" by Thomas Sowell. He says that a major difference between liberals and conservatives is their vision of human nature.

Conservatives tend to believe in a "constrained" vision of human nature, one that is enduring and self-centered, but capable of working together for mutual benefit. Liberals tend to believe in an "unconstrained" vision of human nature, one that is malleable and perfectible.

So naturally, if human nature is perfectible, someone has to decide what "perfection" looks like, and the more perfect have to lead the less perfect to the top of the mountain. Whether they like it or not. (This last is my summation, not Sowell's)BTW, the last paragraph is s-o-o-o-ol "Wesley Mouch-like", the evil manipulator and Liberal Moo-cher of the malleable masses it smells of one hundred Ayn Rands channeling through Sowell (and/or you :lol: :lol: )

Sowell is a libertarian. And so are you. I suppose your last paragraph could have been mostly you echoing Rand. But I do not believe Sowells' "unconstrained" hackneyed version of liberalism makes much sense. :cool:

[sammy the sage]

Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger. :)

Wow...somebody's coming in from the "dark" side...interesting! :ThmbUp:

[sammy the sage]

When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And when you're a cop, by the nature of the job, you see the dregs of society. I don't deny the dregs exist, I just don't think they are as prevalent as you do,

Really now...because by the PRECIOUS #'s that YOU so blindly BELIEVE to be correct by current government...

make them THE majority of the population...ouch!!!

oh the funny part of this discussion about cops...always democrat when working...but when getting fat pensions worked out by the same they SUDDENLY become staunch pugs... :lol:

[Clocker]

The following is enough for any critical thinker to spot the influence of Ayn Rand on Sowell.

He said "critical thinker". :lol:

After a multi-post screed against a book you didn't read. Followed by an attack on the author you didn't read. Followed by an attack on a one paragraph description of what the book is about. Followed by an attack on me for posting that description. All based solely on the critical objective analysis that: "I do not believe Sowells' "unconstrained" hackneyed version of liberalism makes much sense."

Without reading Sowell, you can spot Rand's influence on him. An awesome piece of critical thinking. I don't suppose you read "Atlas Shrugged", which you have also been analyzing in depth?

[hcap]

Read iot when I was friendly with Objectivists in my teens. Just watched Atlas I and sequel Atlas II. I will always be blown away by the auto engine that runs on free ambient static electricity. (Have a technical background.)

As I grew older I began to realize ALL of Objectivism runs on the same non-existent fantasy LaLa land "fee energy" :lol:

[hcap]

If you want to know Ayn Rands' version of the ruling Liberal and how that liberal acquires power read Rands' The Fountainhead. The character Ellsworth Tooney is a cartoonish version of a socialist/communist/Liberal that I am sure the right of today has in mind, and Sowells "unconstrained" manipulator personifies. Unless of course you Mr Clocker got your description of Sowells concept all wrong.

http://tuohysoftheworld.blogspot.com/2010/08/ellsworth-toohey.html

This starts about 1/2 way down the page. I suggest, as I have done before all our Ayn Rand believers just refer to this Tooney speech when ranting at liberals---instead of arguing specifics, Just say for instance "No. 1" so we all kmow the drill :lol:

"Whom...?"(Peter another Fountainhead character, asks Tooney about whom to rule?)

"You. The world. It’s only a matter of discovering the lever. If you learn how to rule one single man’s soul, you can get the rest of mankind. It’s the soul, Peter, the soul. Not whips or swords or fire or guns. That’s why the Caesars, the attilas, the Napoleons were fools and did not last. We will. The soul, Peter, is that which can’t be ruled. It must be broken. Drive a wedge in, get your fingers on it – and the man is yours. You won’t need a whip – he’ll bring it to you and ask to be whipped. Set him in reverse – and his own mechanism will do your work for you. Use him against himself. Want to know how it’s done? See if I ever lied to you. See if you haven’t heard all this for years, but didn’t want to hear, and the fault is yours, not mine.


There are many ways. Here’s one. Make man feel small. Make him feel guilty. Kill his aspiration and his integrity. That’s difficult. The worst among you gropes for an idol in his own twisted way. Kill integrity by internal corruption. Use it against himself. Direct it towards a goal destructive of all integrity. Preach selflessness. Tell man that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one has ever reached it and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it. But don’t you see what you accomplish ? Man realises that he’s incapable of what he’s accepted as the noblest virtue - and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness. Since the supreme ideal is beyond his grasp, he gives up eventually all ideals, all aspiration, all sense of his personal value. He feels himself obliged to preach what he can’t practice. But one can’t be good halfway or honest approximately. To preserve one’s integrity is a hard battle. Why preserve that which one knows to be corrupt already? His soul gives up its self respect. You’ve got him. He’ll obey. He’ll be glad to obey – because he can’t trust himself, he feels uncertain, he feels unclean. That’s one way.


Even better refer to this praise of selfishness as NO. 2 instead of no 1

:cool: :cool:

[Clocker]

If you want to know Ayn Rands' version of the ruling Liberal and how that liberal acquires power read Rands' The Fountainhead.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't want to know Rand's version of anything. She told a story about a problem that has become reality, but she has no answers. Her books are useful to point out the problems to those not yet aware of them.

The character Ellsworth Tooney is a cartoonish version of a socialist/communist/Liberal that I am sure the right of today has in mind

You like to deal with cartoonish versions of things, including your analysis of a book you didn't read. We don't need cartoonish versions when we can see the reality of the Looney Toons running the country: Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin, Bernanke, etc., etc.

[hcap]

You like to deal with cartoonish versions of things, including your analysis of a book you didn't read. We don't need cartoonish versions when we can see the reality of the Looney Toons running the country: Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin, Bernanke, etc., etc.I took your description of Sowells' constrained and unconstrained division of types into conservative and liberal. That is itself as cartoonish as Rands' villains and hero's.

Howard Roark and John Galt probably show up dressed as Superman and Batman when Randians throw a shindig. Wesley Mouch and Ellsworth Tooney, as you have described with a flourish---"Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin, Bernanke, etc., etc :lol: :lol: :jump: :jump: :D