Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

1…78101213…137

Comments

  • #272
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    The more I hear the word Libertarian, the more I think greedy, self-centred dick-head.


  • #273
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    This article describes Rand and her influence fairly well I think:

    http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/11/who-is-john-galt-that-was-bumper.html


  • #274
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    robindch wrote: »
    The issue for me is that libertarians, like christians and other ideaologues, tend to assert policies which are non-negotiable and politics is nothing, if not the art of wide-scale negotiation.
    That implies there is no ideology behind a large and powerful state which is patently ridiculous. Ever read Hobbes? Or Hegel? Or Mussolini? Or Marx? That is the core nucleus of statist ideology right there. But don't let that get in the way of your pot banging.


  • #275
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    And when I hear socialist or social democrat I think of unwashed spastics fisting each other.

    Ooh this is fun. Bit easy though.


  • #276
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Valmont wrote: »
    That implies there is no ideology behind a large and powerful state which is patently ridiculous.
    Er, no. I'm implying that uncompromising ideologues are unfit for government. Specifically, people who assert that sticking to some tenet of some ideology is more important than the results that such adherence causes, especially where that tenet has unpredictable downside consequences, or where it's vague or poorly defined.

    I'm thinking here specifically of the unenlightened baboons in the Tea/Republican Party who precipitated last year's debt ceiling crisis in the USA arguably on account of a cold, uncompromising adherence to the Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Taxpayer_Protection_Pledge

    There are plenty of other examples.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Newaglish wrote: »
    How so?
    Sorry, I should probably have qualified my statement with an opinion. Well as robindch pointed out, 'better the devil you know'!

    Libertarianism sound great in principle, as do most ideologies, Communism etc., Permabear can correct me if I'm wrong, since this is his area of expertise, but basically it boils down to reducing the influence of government has on choices an individual makes. So far this sounds good, indeed who wouldn't want less state interference in their lives?!

    In the case of the US (at the moment), this is targeted at reducing federal government input in everything ranging from taxation, healthcare and education. But why stop at the federal level, libertarianism is dedicated to the removal of government meddling at all levels, whether that be federal, state, county, district, etc and the eventual devolution of government provided services to the free-market and leave the choice to the individual.

    I'm going to steer clear of the economic arguments here (that's been done many-a-time in other forums) and concentrate on education. Under a libertarian system, ideally education would be fully privatised under the guise of providing 'choice'. Sounds great, I'm an atheist who wants to choose a school for my kids with little to no religious interference especially when it comes to science. No state education board introducing creationism in place of evolution for me thank you! I'll just shop around and find one that suits.............but wait a minute.........I live in an extremely conservative Christian area of America. There is no incentive for private companies to provide education catering to my wishes.....the only ones are hundreds of miles away and cost too much. On the other hand, the heavily subsidised Church/Creationism/ID/<insert agenda driven organisation here> run schools are within my budget.

    My child's (not mine) education and therefore future choices in life are adversely affected by where I live and what I can afford, compared to a child growing up elsewhere in the US. It's prime for the wealthy religious organisations to exploit the children of poorer parents, which is pretty much what happens around the globe. Call me naiive, but I believe a child should receive the same basic level of education regardless of where he/she lives or how wealthy their parents are.

    Libertarianism, to me is the biggest cop-out. it wouldn't matter a jot if whoever got in was an avowed atheist, socially liberal, etc. Their policies (or more correctly lack of/ or fence-sitting) is what would allow extremeist viewpoints to flourish. Sometimes government is there to protect the weak/minority in society from mob rule (or as I like to call it village democracy).

    Likewise with abortion, the attitude reminds me of an Irish one. Yes it's a woman's choice but we want nothing to do with it - go somewhere else and don't bother us with your problems/cost. Fine if you live in NYC, not so great if you happen to find yourself in the Midwest Bible belt.


  • #278
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm thinking here specifically of the unenlightened baboons in the Tea/Republican Party who precipitated last year's debt ceiling crisis in the USA arguably on account of a cold, uncompromising adherence to the Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge":

    Very little to do with that. They were never, ever going to not agree to raise the debt ceiling, it would've screwed their mates over. It was an example of Obama/the Democrats not knowing how politics or negotiating works. If you believe they're not all in cahoots.

    There was a good clip on The Daily Show and/or The Colbert Report around that time of a kid suggesting months beforehand when Obama gave the Republicans what they wanted upfront that the Democrats had already played the hand they should've saved for when the debt ceiling negotiations came around.


  • #279
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #280
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #281
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    robindch wrote: »
    Er, no. I'm implying that uncompromising ideologues are unfit for government. Specifically, people who assert that sticking to some tenet of some ideology is more important than the results that such adherence causes, especially where that tenet has unpredictable downside consequences, or where it's vague or poorly defined.
    Ah yes, the glorious political pragmatists! Who do nothing that they say they will, who compromise their own puported convictions, and who continually break promises, and all in the name of negotiation! Did I say I was going to close Guantanamo? Tough! I'm not, but you can blame the Republicans for not compromising. I take it then that you conceed the point that the big government Democrats are just as ideological as any other political party then?
    robindch wrote: »
    I'm thinking here specifically of the unenlightened baboons in the Tea/Republican Party who precipitated last year's debt ceiling crisis in the USA arguably on account of a cold, uncompromising adherence to the Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge":
    One could equally cite the Democrat's refusal to compromise on their spend spend spend policy but nevermind.

    You know, for an atheist, you have a remarkable tendency to deify anything on left...


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Newaglish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭Newaglish


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Sorry, I should probably have qualified my statement with an opinion. Well as robindch pointed out, 'better the devil you know'!

    Libertarianism sound great in principle, as do most ideologies, Communism etc., Permabear can correct me if I'm wrong, since this is his area of expertise, but basically it boils down to reducing the influence of government has on choices an individual makes. So far this sounds good, indeed who wouldn't want less state interference in their lives?!

    In the case of the US (at the moment), this is targeted at reducing federal government input in everything ranging from taxation, healthcare and education. But why stop at the federal level, libertarianism is dedicated to the removal of government meddling at all levels, whether that be federal, state, county, district, etc and the eventual devolution of government provided services to the free-market and leave the choice to the individual.

    I'm going to steer clear of the economic arguments here (that's been done many-a-time in other forums) and concentrate on education. Under a libertarian system, ideally education would be fully privatised under the guise of providing 'choice'. Sounds great, I'm an atheist who wants to choose a school for my kids with little to no religious interference especially when it comes to science. No state education board introducing creationism in place of evolution for me thank you! I'll just shop around and find one that suits.............but wait a minute.........I live in an extremely conservative Christian area of America. There is no incentive for private companies to provide education catering to my wishes.....the only ones are hundreds of miles away and cost too much. On the other hand, the heavily subsidised Church/Creationism/ID/<insert agenda driven organisation here> run schools are within my budget.

    My child's (not mine) education and therefore future choices in life are adversely affected by where I live and what I can afford, compared to a child growing up elsewhere in the US. It's prime for the wealthy religious organisations to exploit the children of poorer parents, which is pretty much what happens around the globe. Call me naiive, but I believe a child should receive the same basic level of education regardless of where he/she lives or how wealthy their parents are.

    Libertarianism, to me is the biggest cop-out. it wouldn't matter a jot if whoever got in was an avowed atheist, socially liberal, etc. Their policies (or more correctly lack of/ or fence-sitting) is what would allow extremeist viewpoints to flourish. Sometimes government is there to protect the weak/minority in society from mob rule (or as I like to call it village democracy).

    Likewise with abortion, the attitude reminds me of an Irish one. Yes it's a woman's choice but we want nothing to do with it - go somewhere else and don't bother us with your problems/cost. Fine if you live in NYC, not so great if you happen to find yourself in the Midwest Bible belt.

    .


  • #283
    Newaglish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭Newaglish


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I'm gonna hop in any say yes. I can't imagine why not?


  • #284
    Newaglish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭Newaglish


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Gott_Mit_Uns_by_christians.jpg

    /godwin


  • #285
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    No, no, God lost.


  • #286
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,271 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    robindch wrote: »
    This article describes Rand and her influence fairly well I think:

    http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/11/who-is-john-galt-that-was-bumper.html
    feynman on love, in a fashion:
    http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/i-love-my-wife-my-wife-is-dead.html

    rand on love, in a fashion:
    http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/love-of-parasite-is-worth-nothing.html

    she sounds like a crude attempt to beat the turing test.


  • #287
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    legspin wrote: »
    The more I hear the word Libertarian, the more I think greedy, self-centred dick-head.
    (thanked by a moderator, no less)
    Newaglish wrote: »
    Gott_Mit_Uns_by_christians.jpg

    /godwin
    I see the level of debate in the Atheism, Agnosticism, and Statism forum is still intensely intellectual. And Robindch still hasn't finished an Ayn Rand novel. :D


  • #288
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Valmont wrote: »
    And Robindch still hasn't finished an Ayn Rand novel.
    On the contrary, I struggled to the end of something called "Anthem", and posted about it here 18 months ago:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68384629&postcount=21

    Enjoy!


  • #289
    Newaglish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭Newaglish


    Valmont wrote: »
    (thanked by a moderator, no less)

    I see the level of debate in the Atheism, Agnosticism, and Statism forum is still intensely intellectual. And Robindch still hasn't finished an Ayn Rand novel. :D

    I was responding to an incredibly tired and incorrect argument put forward by Permabear. When people resort to poorly thought out nonsense in a debate I tend to resort in kind, rather than wasting my time taking apart something that is so obviously ridiculous.


  • #290
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Newaglish wrote: »
    I was responding to an incredibly tired and incorrect argument put forward by Permabear. When people resort to poorly thought out nonsense in a debate I tend to resort in kind, rather than wasting my time taking apart something that is so obviously ridiculous.
    I could be wrong here, but I don't believe Permabear was actually supporting that tired argument in the way it looks like. I suspect he was asserting that ones religious views (or lack of) don't necessarily have everything to do with how you govern. i.e. All Presidents have been Christian and there have been good presidents. And a bunch of atheists have been totalitarian dictators.


  • #291
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I don't normally post up ten-minute youtube clips, but yiz all have to see this one -- totally, utterly, completely, fully, entirely batshit crazy.

    Note Santorum surging briefly in support at 6:20.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    robindch wrote: »
    On the contrary, I struggled to the end of something called "Anthem", and posted about it here 18 months ago:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68384629&postcount=21

    Enjoy!
    My apologies and I agree with your final sentence:
    robindch wrote: »
    The one and only conclusion to be drawn from the piece is that Ms Rand really does seem to believe that the best of all possible worlds is one filled with people like her, all

    EGOMANIACS
    I'd disagree with your use of the word "egomaniac" but, yes, essentially what Rand proposes is that the world would be a better place if people worried more about providing and achieving for themselves rather than other people or worrying about what Group A isn't being forced by Group B to give to Group C.

    The essay The Virtue of Selfishness elaborates on this point further.

    Really though, if you wanted to get the full gist of Rand's philosophy, I would say The Fountainhead is required reading. As you know, Anthem is quite a weak novel, as far as ideas go anyway.


  • #293
    Barr125
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    robindch wrote: »
    I don't normally post up ten-minute youtube clips, but yiz all have to see this one -- totally, utterly, completely, fully, entirely batshit crazy.

    Note Santorum surging briefly in support at 6:20.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig


    Yes, I'm sure we will all be worried when God removes every single Christian from the Earth and leaves only us, the rational, non-bigoted, free thinkers, and all the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders behind...........it will be truly Hell on Earth, only without the fire and the torture and the weird crazy Satyrs with pitchforks :pac:

    I thought it was bat-**** insane alright, seeing as their version of the Anti-Christ is the one who will bring peace to the Middle-East, which is, in my mind and pretty much the entire Christian mythos, the opposite of what an Anti-Christ should be doing. (Didn't Bush try peace bringing to the Middle-East already?)

    I actually sort of pitied them, right up until A) That guy referenced the ''Left Behind'' movies, which are God awful (excuse the pun) and 2) 9:36, then I shook my head at the bigotry of yet another form of Christianity and was then contented by watching the crazy lady dance. :rolleyes:


  • #294
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Religion, despite what many would claim, isn't just some personal private communication people have with God. If so there'd be no need for big churches to hold mass congregations of people. Churches tend to dominate the community they're in. Ever find it strange how the number of Catholic schools in Ireland was roughly equal to the number of Catholic parishes? Education is very expensive, and there are few organisations who can subsidise it to an affordable level - governments & religious organisations are the only two I can think of with the resources and the motives.
    Permabear wrote: »
    So, you believe that government-run schools in inner-city Washington, D.C., should provide the same level of education as government-run schools in Marin County, California?
    I did say I was probably naiive, but yes! Why not? I do realise that it may be an unattainable goal but why should a child's education be determined by the social position of his/her parents. Sounds like a religious argument to lay the sins of the parent/ancestor on the child;)

    The alternative would result in further distinction of the class system, where the poor would be educated and then exploited by religion
    robindch wrote: »
    I don't normally post up ten-minute youtube clips, but yiz all have to see this one -- totally, utterly, completely, fully, entirely batshit crazy.

    Note Santorum surging briefly in support at 6:20.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig
    'Santorum surging' - sounds NSFW, might not click it now!:eek:

    Yeah, completely fcuked up and the links tend be tenous at best, hatred of Muslims? I'd imagine it wouldn't take much for this 'cosy' relationship to be at each others throats!

    Also interesting to note representatives from both sides of the US political divide there, with Santorum and Lieberman (a former Democrat VP candidate).

    I'd agree with libertarian foreign & military policy, withdrawing from the Middle-East and minimal overseas intervention.........but what would be the libertarian position on groups like CUFI in the clip raising funds to send weapons or a private militia abroad?


  • #295
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #296
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    14 religious groups tell presidential fruitcakes to go easy on the religion:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/religion-politics_n_1291624.html


  • #297
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    I'm hoping this isn't a repost.

    Republican candidates try to out-god each other. "I'm more religious than him, god had breakfast with me this morning and the holy ghost is stayin over tonight". (not actual quote, a little hyperbole)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG_Oz9eaP-8


    There is a full video of the forum on Youtube somewhere, but this is the fillet. The 'best' part. The full version is over an hour an a half.

    Newt talks about the creator. I know someone else who did also:
    Mein Kampf (Adolf Hitler)
    And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.[1]
    Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.
    I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

    And christians still say he was an Atheist.


  • #298
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    what would be the libertarian position on groups like CUFI in the clip raising funds to send weapons or a private militia abroad?
    Impossible to tell -- hence one of the lesser of my concerns with libertarians -- but I'd imagine that most would be ok with it, probably with many viewing the laws intended to stop this kind of thing constituting unwarranted government interference in the private lives of individuals.

    So far as I'm aware of Ayn Rand's views, she held that a government had a right, just about, to raise funds to pay for an army to guarantee the integrity of the state. As a corollary, I'd imagine that Rand, and therefore most libertarians, probably would have been ok with mercenaries heading off elsewhere with money openly collected at home.

    Perhaps a libertarian might comment?


  • #299
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #300
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    "Big-government statists" cannot be generalised as being not pacifists.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    I seem to remember Permabear's preferred candidate, Anyone But Obama, using self-defence to rationalise military aggression in the middle east.


Advertisement