WHY IS THERE NO LIBERAL AYN RAND ???

is uncle joe in your script v.p. biden?

or is it joe pa?

or maybe its uncle joe stalin?

if its from petticoat junction, are you president of edgar buchanan's fan club?. id rather think of bettie jo or bobbi jo or billie jo

WTF, post a link to where I said that I wanted the government to raise taxes or grow in size. If you can't do this then exile yourself off this site and (as they say) STFU. Good Bye

I think WDF got beat up a lot as a kid. Probably explains his failure to fully mature. He is to be pitied above all else.

I think WDF got beat up a lot as a kid. Probably explains his failure to fully mature. He is to be pitied above all else. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

if he was beat up a lot..well i was picked on by older kids a lot in a boys home..so my heart goes out to him..makes me want to gather him up in my arms...shield him just as if i were teresa kerry and he was one of the little people

WTF, post a link to where I said that I wanted the government to raise taxes or grow in size. If you can't do this then exile yourself off this site and (as they say) STFU. Good Bye Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Prove you do not support politicians who have voted to expand the government...

While you are at it prove to us that you and COFool have never played with each others peepee.

if he was beat up a lot..well i was picked on by older kids a lot in a boys home..so my heart goes out to him..makes me want to gather him up in my arms...shield him just as if i were teresa kerry and he was one of the little people Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

If you were teresa kerry, I just might let you gather me up in your arms!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrGeOHpEGk0

I think WDF got beat up a lot as a kid. Probably explains his failure to fully mature. He is to be pitied above all else. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'd rather you lick my dirty bung, then french kiss JD.

Don't forget never with the besos!

Still begs the question, where are the liberal, literary giants? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Noam Chomsky is much more revered among progressives than Rand is among conservatives.

Rand was a writer and polemicist who held no particular job, credentials, or standing.
She was just a fiction writer, not even much of an essayist.

Chomsky is a genius in his field, a tenured faculty member at MIT whose the founding father of modern linquistics.

Chomsky has debated everyone of high repute who disagrees with him. He's written and lectured a million times more than Rand ever did.

Rand only lectured and wrote for her audience of acolytes like Alan Greenspan.

Noam Chomsky is much more revered among progressives than Rand is among conservatives.

Rand was a writer and polemicist who held no particular job, credentials, or standing.
She was just a fiction writer, not even much of an essayist.

Chomsky is a genius in his field, a tenured faculty member at MIT whose the founding father of modern linquistics.

Chomsky has debated everyone of high repute who disagrees with him. He's written and lectured a million times more than Rand ever did.

Rand only lectured and wrote for her audience of acolytes like Alan Greenspan. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Chomsky is also a liar. His leftist tracts are filled with gross misrepresentations of historical facts and events.

Chomsky is also a liar. His leftist tracts are filled with gross misrepresentations of historical facts and events. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Chomsky is the opposite of a liar.

Every fact in every speech and essay he's presented is backed up with undeniable documentation.

You may disagree with his interpretations and theory, but there is no denying that his presentations are 100% accurate factually.

His credibility has never been questioned by his detractors, only his opinions.

All you have to do is listen to the news to understand how uncannily accurate Rand's picture of our future was. She was more than an intellectual, she was a prophet.

What's the mantra of today? "We must bring down the achievers to make things more fair for all." "Hey, Reardon. You didn't make that metal yourself. Give the formula to all of us, it's not fair that you make money on your own invention."

And then Obama gets praise for demanding that the achievers "pay their fair share" but when push comes to shove, he extends the tax cuts. Phoniest, most corrupt President ever. I have no idea why anyone would vote for him.

You want to know why Romney only paid 13% in income taxes the last few years? Because Obama and the Democrats in 2009 and 2010 said it was ok. If they wanted to change the law, they could have. They didn't. They just want an issue to demagogue. They don't want change any more than Romney does.

Bunch of lying bastards.

All you have to do is listen to the news to understand how uncannily accurate Rand's picture of our future was. She was more than an intellectual, she was a prophet.

What's the mantra of today? "We must bring down the achievers to make things more fair for all." "Hey, Reardon. You didn't make that metal yourself. Give the formula to all of us, it's not fair that you make money on your own invention."

And then Obama gets praise for demanding that the achievers "pay their fair share" but when push comes to shove, he extends the tax cuts. Phoniest, most corrupt President ever. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Uhhh...

An intellectual who never debated anyone? Never published a peer-reviewed article in any discipline? Never received any award by an professional or intellectual society?

She was no intellectual, much less a prophet.

She predicted that the future alternative to her vision wasn't the mediocrity of today.

What she predicted was that it was either her Hobbsean vision of a social Darwinist jungle....OR STALIN.

She never spoke for a second about anything we have today.

btw.....

It was actually Nietzche who wrote about the masses dragging down the achievers, not Rand.

Rand did speak about, "the producers," but was part of her political economy against communism.

Nietzche is a favorite of mine, and some say he was a favorite of more than a few Nazis.

Chomsky is the opposite of a liar.

Every fact in every speech and essay he's presented is backed up with undeniable documentation.

You may disagree with his interpretations and theory, but there is no denying that his presentations are 100% accurate factually.

His credibility has never been questioned by his detractors, only his opinions. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

No!!! Chomsky, in his political tracts, blatantly misstates or distorts the facts to support his POV -- he is a liar. BTW, that's my personal observation of his work based on his works that I have read. However, here is a list of others who have also found his work to be that of a dishonest liar: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html

Now that you've avowed your blind admiration (as did Hugo Chavez) for Chomsky's distortions, it goes a long way towards explaining your POV.

Tae, since you insist that the holocaust never happened, and that the Norwegians are the super race, I hope you will forgive me for not bowing to your intellectual superiority.

boy, we are getting some snobbery love today!!!

No!!! Chomsky, in his political tracts, blatantly misstates or distorts the facts to support his POV -- he is a liar. BTW, that's my personal observation of his work based on his works that I have read. However, here is a list of others who have also found his work to be that of a dishonest liar: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html



Now that you've avowed your blind admiration (as did Hugo Chavez) for Chomsky's distortions, it goes a long way towards explaining your POV. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually I don't always agree with Chomsky's opinions and theory, but I recognize that as a top-tier scholar his research is always impeccable.

The blog that you're citing is not a peer-reviewed, highly-researched source like Chomsky is.

The blogger you're putting forward as an authority is himself lying about Chomsky.

Chomsky never lies because he's a scholar and has no motive for lying about anything.

If he was actually caught lying about even one fact his acedemic reputation, which is more distiguished than anyone, would be compromised.

When you come up with a real scholar instead of a blogger who can show Chomsky is inaccurate in any detail then I will pay attention.