You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus

[_3sheets2thewind]

that there no poor among you....If I recall correctly Jesus, or Jehovah did say that.

Just face it, rand is a anti-christ and the inspiration for the religion of Satanism. You can be a christian and follower satanism. or the inspiration thereof.

[_EAllusion]

It should be noted that LeVayan Satanism, what people who self-describe as Satanists actually think, is basically Ayn Rand with more pleasure-seeking and pentagrams, but less rape fiction.

[_Droopy]

What's going on here? Droopy clearly disagrees very strongly with Kevin Graham, but the tone of this post is strikingly different from his usual style on such occasions. It is hardly friendly, but it is nothing like as bombastically nasty and denigratory as he has been in the past. It's almost like he thinks Jesus is watching him for real ...

No Chap, actually its like probably 95% of the posts I've ever put up here since this board's inception. Perception is either half full or half empty, it seems. You can concentrate on my relatively few, personal tussles with other individuals here, or the vast majority of my intellectual engagements. Your choice.

I do thank you for at least noticing, however.

[_Buffalo]

What's going on here? Droopy clearly disagrees very strongly with Kevin Graham, but the tone of this post is strikingly different from his usual style on such occasions. It is hardly friendly, but it is nothing like as bombastically nasty and denigratory as he has been in the past. It's almost like he thinks Jesus is watching him for real ...

No Chap, actually its like probably 95% of the posts I've ever put up here since this board's inception. Perception is either half full or half empty, it seems. You can concentrate on my relatively few, personal tussles with other individuals here, or the vast majority of my intellectual engagements. Your choice.

I do thank you for at least noticing, however.

Now now, good behavior doesn't count if you follow it up with a fib.

[_Droopy]

On the contrary, you're the one resorting to emotional quips, as usual, which is a hallmark of someone who's got nothing by way of intellectual comeback.

Well Kevin, since you rarely bring anything of intellectual substacne to most discussions, and probably 70% of the bulk of your discourse is composed of personal put downs, you leave others precious few alternatives.

I've backed up all my claims with evidence, and all you can do is resort to conspiracy theory, insisting all the sources I listed are members of a massive cover up campaign by "the leftists."

The Soros agenda to deeply influence American politics is not a conspiricy theory, but a well known political/ideological project among a core of the "ruling class" intelligentsia. That it is conspiratorial in the sense of a number of people networking, planning, and working together, many times behind the scenes, to accomplish political and social transformations in American society is not arguable, and hardly startling, but I think you mean "conspiracy" in the John Kennedy assassination sense, and no serious conservative has ever argued that.

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Party-Hill ... 051&sr=1-1

The point is that The Center for American Progress is a organization who's mission is the dissemination of political propaganda. It is not a serious think tank, or even a serious intellectual blog site. Indeed, Robert Dreyfuss, in an article in The Nation of The Nation in March, 2004, said:

It’s Not Completely Wrong To See [CAP] As A Shadow Government, A Kind Of Clinton White-House-In-Exile – Or A White House Staff In Readiness For President Hillary Clinton.

You will notice that Horowitz and Poe used this very term as the title of their book on the organization.

LOL! I've dealt with you and your kind long enough to know a know-nothing bigot when I see one.

Well, there's no substitute for experience.

Throwing in a bunch of colorful language isn't going to validate your viewpoints. And about education, I don't know who you think you're kidding, but I'm formally educated.

I have a High School diploma too Kevin.

Although I didn't major in economics or political science, I took the relevant courses and my life experiences abroad have shaped my views and provided more open-minded perspective than your confinement to backwoods South Carolina, where you apparently rely on a weak AM reception for your daily consumption of Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity, along with your dial-up internet connection to your favorite Right Wing blogs and so-called "think tanks".

Actually, I was born and raised in Seattle Washington, spent much of the seventies in San Diego, CA, and have lived in Minnesota, Utah, Maryland, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Germany. I have also been to Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, The Netherlands, and the U.K.

I don't use AM radio, as its not availible here in the backwoods. I send smoke signals to ex-WWF wrestlers living on food stamps who then record Rush Limbaugh on 8 track tape and send it to me with the next moonshine delivery.

And besides, aren't you the guy who is pushing 50 and still trying to finish college?

I'm 52, and university, for which I have paid out of pocket, is very expensive. I've had to slow down, yes. I did take a 28 year detour, with Captain Morgan, Ol' Grandad, and some guy named Jack, away from my goals and aims, but that's behind me now. The expense, however, looms.

What that has to do with anything, by the way, I'm not at all sure.

So you're in no position to be criticizing anyone who finished school years ago.

So anyone who finishes a formal education is, in some general way, smarter or more intelligent that someone who hasn't? In one's particular sub-specialty within one's major, especially in a natural or hard science, I can see this being the case. Outside of that, I'm not sure I accept the premises this claim implies. Indeed, the 20th century is just loaded with examples of "intellectuals" with an abundance of formal education who are egregiously stupid and unwise, and indeed, dangerously so, when they begin to influence society and politics. What was your major, by the way?

And aren't you also the same guy who gave a rant in your "speech class" recently, and then came to the forum to brag about how you've had your opinions shared and tested in an "academic setting"? LOL!

What are you talking about?

[_Chap]

What's going on here? Droopy clearly disagrees very strongly with Kevin Graham, but the tone of this post is strikingly different from his usual style on such occasions. It is hardly friendly, but it is nothing like as bombastically nasty and denigratory as he has been in the past. It's almost like he thinks Jesus is watching him for real ...

No Chap, actually its like probably 95% of the posts I've ever put up here since this board's inception. Perception is either half full or half empty, it seems. You can concentrate on my relatively few, personal tussles with other individuals here, or the vast majority of my intellectual engagements. Your choice.

I do thank you for at least noticing, however.

Naaah. What I see here is Eternal Progression at work. Onwards and upwards, an example to us all.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh goody, I have something to look forward to tonight while I'm home alone. It will remind me of the good ole days of grading papers. But I have a moment now so I'll just respond to this piece of silliness about education. Anyone reading this exchange will notice it was droopy who first attacked me for being uneducated. It essentially went like this:

Droopy: You have no education

Kevin: Actually I do, and from what I understand you are still trying to finish school

Droopy: Just because you finished school earlier doesn't make you smarter than me!

Wtf?

This is typical droopy maneuvering. I never said this. I simply responded to his initial attack. He raised the issue of education and then he accused me of bringing it up as a Trump card when in fact he is the one guilty of this. He is also trying to imply that my information about tax rates are based strictly on a "Soros sponsored" think tank, when in fact it comes from Tax Policy Center and based on objective data. The so called "propaganda" piece in USA today also cited a spokesperson from Freedomworksm but droops doesn't really read anything after he sees a reference to a "leftist" source. Anyway, much more later tonight...

ps: I will say that it is a pleasant surprise to see droops lighten up a bit on the backwoods theme. I usually laugh in response to most of droopy's comments, but this was probably the first time I was laughing with him.

[Guest]

[qu

[_Droopy]

He is also trying to imply that my information about tax rates are based strictly on a "Soros sponsored" think tank, when in fact it comes from Tax Policy Center and based on objective data.

Its based on someone's specific analysis and construction of a graph based upon that particular analysis, an analysis that was slipshod and not to a small degree deceptive.

[_Tarski]

Its based on someone's specific analysis and construction of a graph based upon that particular analysis, an analysis that was slipshod and not to a small degree deceptive.

Translation: I (Droopy) don't know exactly how the analysis is "slipshod and deceptive" (since I haven't really read it) but I know it must be such because of my faith in my ideology. If push comes to shove I (Droopy) may or may not be able to find and post a Limbaughesque response to the analysis. That is, I (Droopy) am bluffing.