Really? Could you please quote where the article made mention of Lisa Brown’s race?
True dat. But there are some conservatives who do give to charities etc–so some of them must feel something. I can’t dismiss an entire sector of the population based on one criteria. Or at least I can’t today. 
Well, the article mention that this woman with kids would have kids that could potentially be homeless if another place isn’t found. So, I guess you’re correct in that an example including a guy with no kids probably wouldn’t work when talking about his kids. Likewise, this article failed to mention the woman caring for her elderly grandmother, probably because she had no elderly grandmother to care for. Funny that.
But if you look at the entirety of the article, you’d see that the gist is that this kind of crap is happening EVERYWHERE. All across america. And for that, yeah, they probably could have included a white guy with no kids and the article would work just as well.
The article has her picture. And it calls her “Brown.” And it says that some renters are left in the dark.
QED.
All true. But he only got better when he got caught fucking another woman and got himself tossed out of the movement.
Thanks. From what little I know of him, he seems to be a very smart guy who has his act together.
Excommunicated.
But yah, point taken. If he hadn’t had a personal rift with Rand he might very well still be a randroid to this day. I’d like to think otherwise, but who knows.
Oh, and: tdn no prob.
I know nothing of the true nature of your compassion. I noted that RR had none and that he is a conservative. I note that you too, are a conservative, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you fall into the category of conservatives without compassion, or conservatives who lie to themselves about whether they have compassion. Or, the Scylla dimension of conservative yet racist grandpa cops who save the untermenschen from drowning, and are therefore not racist and maybe compassionate.
What you are asking me is whether I consider all conservatives to be compassionless and thereby you in that category. Which would be quite a charge. I would essentially be accusing you of being compassionless, contrary to your premise in this thread, and on insufficient evidence. I do suspect that at heart most conservatives are indeed without true compassion, and that they are kidding themselves. But to know this about an individual, I would have to know a lot more about the individual. RR I feel comfortable in calling compassionless for our purposes. Bush II, I feel comfortable saying that. Barbara Bush the First Lady and First Mother, who gave $10,000 to spend on Katrina victims, yeah, that is without compassion. Ronald Reagan, compassionless creep. Nixon appeared to have a slight amount of compassion when compared to Reagan or Bush.
But to have a general set of criteria in which to make a determination, I suppose that I would like to know does the person give to charities that help the poor or sick? Do they give directly to homeless people? Do they contribute professional services for free to the needy? Do they contribute volunteer time? And I’d need to know some detail about all of these things, possibly more things. Missing one or more categories might not be a disqualifier.
I have often heard that a person cannot serve both God and Mammon, and it has the seemingness of truth to it. Modern American Conservatism as a philosophy seems to me to be morally bankrupt, justifying lack of compassion along Rand Rover lines. But is it? I would have to examine the whole set of conservatives to see if each falls within the set of compassionless. I’m going to shoot from the hip here and say that there is a mostly overlap, but that they are not synonymous.
I don’t know enough about you to make a judgment about you individually.
I assume you think I am presuming that YOU were born to a life of priviledge and have never had to struggle. I am not.
What I am saying is what you have said. On various occasions you have said things like:
- Being laid off is completely forseeable.
- Being in a position where 2000 people apply for the same job could have been prevented by some foresight.
- Everyone should be in a nice safe job like yours, which I believe is some kind of tax lawyer.
I am telling you that not everyone is able or capable or even can be expected to think about the future in some degree. The only assumption I am drawing from you is that YOU somehow did think about the future, and prepared for it.
Not everyone does. When you come from different places, you often end up in different places. You seem to think that everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and that everyone has equal opportunity. This is untrue.
Not to mention, not everyone wants to pull themselves up. I cannot imagine anything more dreary than being a lawyer. (Sorry, Bricker, you know I love you.) I don’t want to be a lawyer. I don’t even want a lot of money. My salary + a little more would make me happy. I’ll work to make that little more. I’ll work my 40 hours a week and go home and be happy. I’m content with that. I’ll play by the rules - I don’t bust my ass and work 70 hour weeks, and I’ll never be rich, and I live in a small house in Albany instead of a penthouse in Manhattan. So be it. But sometimes something is going to happen I cannot possibly forsee. I may get into an accident tomorrow and yes, the cost of the accident will probably kill me financially. At that point I may whine a bit. I may ask for some sympathy. It’s my lookout, but we’re all traveling on this ball together and a little sympathy offered with constructive advice is the end of the world, nor will it make a person decide they were completely not at fault.
I’m rambling. What I want to say is, most of all, I don’t respect you. And I have less respect for Rand’s philosophies as a result. You may not care. Fair enough. But I disagree, say, with Bricker on almost everything politically and yet he has my respect - so I listen to what he says and try to understand and see if he has a point.
I wish some other Randians would come on the board and try to explain better what Rand is. I promise to read Atlas Shrugged one day - but I think Randians should also read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.
Nathaniel Branden was Rand’s model for John Galt you know.
It is an interesting question, though. I read his autobiography when I was in high school and was, quite predictably, a Randroid. I seem to recall that he had already felt himself drifting from some of the newer people in Rand’s circle and Objectivism in general. But it is hard not to interpret that sort of thing as ex post justification. His turn as Rand’s golden boy had probably just passed.
Lemur: Yep, and I’ve got a first edition of Atlas sitting around somewhere that still has her dedication to Nathaniel, before she removed it once he was excommunicated.
And even that’s an unwarranted assumption. The fact that Rand Rover isn’t out on the streets begging for change could be a function of his implacable foresight and flawless planning. Or it could be dumb luck that any one of a hundred cataclysmic reversals that he’s never even considered haven’t happened to him. Yet.
Especially if one of the female kids turns up missing while they’re moving into a new place.
Naw, not even then.
People keep saying that I believe things like this but can never support their assertion when called on it. Care to be the first?
Well said.
Too many people on these boards just want to “win the internets”, worse even than any group of fucking teenagers. What important here is that a group of like minded people can slap each other on the back in the common cause of siding against the weeks designated troll and/or looney.
“1- 0, fuck yeah, go team”
The problem is that this isnt even fun to watch any more, because the course of this thread was set in stone from post numero uno. The pittee would try to defend himself, while the usual suspects would bounce between moral indignation and gleeful condesencion, all while the silent majority would look at it and think, “whats the point?”.
And so we have yet another pit thread without any real interesting aspects. Where are the alternate viewpoints that make us consider things fom Rands point of view? Where are the rebuttals that positively ring with a strength of belief? Will there be anything in this thread other than a bunch of luvvies saying “I dont know WHY you bother with this troll” or “I used the roll-eyes smiley bitch I must be smarter than you”.
Or maybe even “1 fucking nil you fucknuggets!!!”
It was easy to go along with the idea that it was Ed Zotti that was ruining the Straight Dope, but the more I think about things, it isnt Ed that is the problem. Its that there are some real assholes here, and unfortunately they dominate the board to such an extent that everything seems to be stagnated. How can there be creativity when everything has already been decided, and the thread will simply go the same it did a hundred times before.
The “one nil” quip in this thread may have been tongue in cheek, but this whole board has become just a big “one-nil” from top to bottom.
Well, there was this.
Did you just invoke the “silent majority” as a means of denouncing someone for majoritarian back-slapping? I’m pretty sure you did.
Let me rephrase my comment to “he thinks he has made the proper planning and had the foresight.”
Um, I am not saying any such thing and I am trying to engage RR and talk to him. What am I, invisible?
Actually, if I recall correctly, Rand Rover has indeed expressed a desire on these boards, that the government get out of the business of helping people, and leave that to private charity where it belongs. So you are correct there.
However, he has also expressed that he himself does not contribute a nickle of his money or a moment of his time to any charitable enterprise, and does not see anything at all wrong with this stance.