Community | March 14, 2011 | 468 comments

The Psychopathology of Ayn Rand

source: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Prophet

451/168

Well folks we are now learning why so many of our Republican friends show Psychopathic tendency's. Those like Alan Greenspan and other Economic professionals that have embraced Ayn Rand economic philosophy. Turns out most are Sociopaths that
have long ago forsaken basic Humanity! Good read that may help you understand what this country has been going through for decades.

The Psychopathology of Ayn Rand
Posted by Prophet 451 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Mar 01st 2010, 05:02 AM
You've probably heard of Ayn Rand. Most people have these days. She was the author of such inexplicably widely-read "novels" (really, barely-disguised political diatribes) as "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". Her books are currently enjoying something of a boom among those who misguidedly believe they would be in the self-righteous community of "Atlases" at Galt's Gulch. The novels themselves are of only passing interest, being long, melodramatic and mediocrely written. Rather, it is the "philosophy" at the core of the novels which bears attention.

Hear ye, hear ye, I come to bury Rand, not to praise her. While numerous conservative thinkers (and, oddly, Neil Peart) have lauded Rand as a philosopher, few academic institutions include Rand or Objectivism as a philosophical discipline. Conservatives, such as Chris Sciabarra, tend to believe that the academic left decries Rand due to her anti-communist, pro-capitalist slant. Like much of the witterings of conservatives who presume to know what the left thinks, that presumes firstly, more power than the academic left has had in decades; secondly, assumes that the left was universally pro-communist and anti-capitalist, something which has never been true and thirdly, that Rand was saying anything worth studying. She wasn't. Rand's "philosophy" was the same defence of endless greed which mankind has been engaged in for eternity, the same attempt to place a moral cover on pure selfishness that has long been pursued by any number of exploiters down the centuries. Nietzche was, and is, pilloried for saying "God is dead", Rand is lauded for effectively saying "the self is God". There is nothing new here, save perhaps for the self-delusion that allows so many professed "Christians" to adhere to a philosophy that glorifies greed and athieism. There is also a cult-like deification of Rand by her followers and "swarming" of those who dare criticise her which reminds one very strongly of Scientology (and Glenn Beck followers but that's another matter).

There is another name for those who hold that the only proper moral consideration is the happiness of the self; for those who view empathy and compassion as weakness; who view selfishness as the only virtue: Psychopaths.

Contrary to popular belief, the psychopath is not automatically violent. Rather, the psychopath is defined by a near-complete lack of empathy. Robert Hare (who created the widely used "Hare Psychopathy Checklist") describes psychopaths as "instraspecies predators" who use a combination of charisma, manipulation, intimidation, sexuality and violence to satisfy their own desires. The more human qualities of conscience, empathy, remorse or guilt are either completely absent or extremely limited. It must be repeated that the psychopath is not necessarily violent. Indeed, many are not because their lives have never placed them in a position where violence was the only means to satisfy their desires. Many businessmen (and therefore, many politicians) profile as psychopaths because they exhibit the core characteristics or some section thereof. Ayn Rand should also be considered a psychopath.

Hare's checklist lists certain personality factors as indicative of psychopathy. The average person will perhaps exhibit one or, at most, two. The psychopath will exhibit all but on or two. In no particular order, these items are Glibness/superficial charm. After her writings became popular, Rand collected around herself a group of cultists who virtually worshipped her. However, shallow affect, the psychopath's charm is only ever superficial. As one comes to know and understand the psychopath more fully, the charm which initially attracted one to them is revealed as only skin-deep. In this, Rand was entirely textbook. She was described by most who knew her best as a bitter, friendless child who grew into an equally bitter and acidic woman. Grandiose sense of self-worth would certainly fit Rand. A woman who names her beliefs "Objectivism" out of a belief that any reasoning person who observes the objective truths of the world would necessarily come to full agreement with her would probably qualify. The fact that her little cult were required to memorise her works and discounted as "imbecilic" and "anti-life" if they asked questions simply seals the deal. Her sincere belief was that thinking freely would automatically lead to total agreement with her views. The ruthless policing of her cult would also qualify her under the Cunning/manipulative qualifier. Patholigical lying is one that Rand is probably innocent of. So far as we know, there is no reason to believe she was a pathological liar. Lack of remorse or guilt and Callous/lack of empathy could be described as "Ayn Rand syndrome". These two qualifiers are really the core of her books, philosophhy and worldview. In one of her books (The Fountainhead), her "hero", Howard Roarke, blows up a housing project he designed when a minor alteration is made and then orders the jury to acquit him (the fact that, as an architect, Roarke was presumably contracted for his work and therefore, it wasn't "his" anymore piddles all over the supposed respect for property too). In Atlas Shrugged, her ode to the super-rich which imagines them going on strike against progressive taxation, Rand describes the rest of the world (without whom, let us not forget, the super-rich would be unable to make anything) in such niceties as "savages", "refuse" and "immitations of living beings". When one of the strikers engineers a train crash (because they don't just strike but commit acts of terrorism too), Rand makes it clear that she believes the murdered victims deserved their fate because they supported progressive taxation. A stewing hymn of Nietzchean will-to-power, misanthropy, failure to understand economics, feudalism and sexual politics verging on the obscene, Atlas Shrugged is full of this stuff. Her heroes spend their time both insisting that they are the heroic producers (and without labour, what are they producing exactly?) and bemoaning that others do not worship them as such. In her spare time, Rand was an admirer of serail killer William Hickman (I'll spare you the details of his crimes save to say that they were brutal even by serial killer standards), describing him as "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy"; "other people do not exist for him and he does not see why they should" was her evaluation of his crimes and Rand considered this worthy of praise. Finally, on the personality factor, there is Failure to accept responsibility for one's actions.

For the rest of the read see my first comment:
  1. groups:
    Community,   US Politics,   Progressive America,   current cult,   8 more
  2. tags:
    Lord Humungus
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

468 comments // The Psychopathology of Ayn Rand

  • percipi224
    • +1
      percipi224  

    • I believe that every "philosophy" is tainted by the shadow of the philosopher. Rand apparently hated the idea of govt. as evidenced by those who were devotees who later became huge in Govt. Greenspan most notably. If you recall Rand also had high morals when it came to the people around her but moralized when it came to the freeloaders called the elderly, poor etal. Between Rand and Friedman the "elite" have found themselves a religion that pushes mediocrity to the front of the class just for saying "I am better than the rest" without having to prove it. Again Greenspan. Rand gave voice (a long winded one) and philosophical backing to those who know they are fakers. It is the philosophy of heirarchy. My clique is better than yours so you must go because you are getting old and its time to die. This philosophy dovetailed with christian superiority was a match made in heaven for corporatism. Assholes rule is the mantra and the nastier the better. I still can't get over Rand being on social security and medicare two programs she hated.

    • 1 year ago
  • chuckbutler
    • -1
      chuckbutler  
    • percipi224:

      I'm sorry, but you simply are not informed. (1) Rand did *not* hate government; she held that government is *essential*, but should be limited. (2) Although Greenspan was at one time part of Rand's inner circle, he never claimed to be an Objectivist, and if you read his book (and observe his actions and statements as Fed Chair) it's clear that he was not. (3) Show me one place where Rand ever refers to the elderly or the poor as "freeloaders." You do not understand her position on second-handerism at all. (4) As to your last point, assuming she did receive social security (I honestly don't know if she did or not)--so what? She paid into social security (against her will, I hasten to add), so why shouldn't she collect? She was against the program, but having paid into it, it seems to me she had every right to get her investment back. But of course you would only admire some self-sacrificial gesture in which she refused to accept social security on principle. The point is: if there were no social security program, she wasn't going to demand that someone else pay for her retirement. Nor did she believe that she should be forced to pay for anyone else's. So I think you're making the wrong criticism (which was the point of my previous post). The case you want to make is: human beings have a moral obligation to care for other human beings, and government has the right to force them to do so through programs like SS and Medicare. This argument is grounded in an altruistic morality. Ayn Rand showed, through a series of structured, rational arguments, why the altruistic morality is evil. You need to know what her argument was and show why it is wrong. When you can do that intelligently I'll have a listen. Otherwise you're just howling at the moon.

    • 1 year ago
  • chuckbutler
    • -2
      chuckbutler  

    • I'm certainly not surprised to find all-out Rand bashing in a forum that caters to liberals. And indeed you are correct to oppose Rand's philosophy, as it directly opposes your altruistic ideals. But if there is a single rational person in this forum, I would think you would be embarrassed by the sheer ignorance demonstrated in the piece posted above. I have no objection to disagreeing with Rand, but to indulge in completely uninformed mischaracterizations of her philosophy is disingenuous and unforgivable. Do you place no value on intellectual honesty? Let me cite just a few examples from the above:

      1. The author suggests that Rand's fictional works don't qualify as novels because they are "mediocrely written" "political diatribes." Even if I were to grant those characterizations (which I don't), I'm not aware that either quality of writing or political content are factors in determining whether a literary work qualifies as a "novel."

      2. Since her death in 1982, the number of "academic institutions" that offer courses on Rand and Objectivism has increased steadily. The Ayn Rand Society is now part of the American Philosophical Association. Numerous Objectivist scholars are regularly publishing works based on Rand's philosophy. Remember, Objectivism has only been around for a little over sixty years. It takes time for philosophical ideas to be understood, appreciated, and enter the curriculum.

      3. On that topic, where in the above do I find any substantive discussion of Rand's actual, philosophical ideas? Nowhere. No discussion of her views on consciousness, which only John Searle has remotely approached. No discussion of her theory of concepts, which solves problems that have perplexed philosophers since Plato. No informed discussion of her ethical theory, in which she identifies man's life as the standard of value and the individual's life as his ultimate value.

      4. Instead, ironically, the author launches into a genuine diatribe of his own. It is true that Rand upholds selfishness as a virtue in her moral philosophy. But the author of this article *assumes* that his idea of selfishness and hers are the same. They are not. This author knows nothing of Rand's view, as evidenced by his comparing her philosophy to Nietzche's. The only point of agreement between the two is in their mutual rejection of altruism. Their normative philosophies are *entirely different*. By the way, comparing Objectivism to Scientology is also embarrassingly ignorant. Objectivism is centered on rational, independent thinking. Objectivists do not agree with Rand's philosophy because it is what Rand believed. They agree with it because--having taken the time to study what she actually thought--they find her reasoning sound. Scientology is pseudoscience and quasi-religious science-fiction.

      5. Regarding the "psychopath" comparison. *If* someone like Gordon Gekko could be described as a Randianesque hero then perhaps such a comparison would have merit (I don't know, I'm not a psychologist). But Gekko *in no way* is representative of Objectivist morality. He consistently fails to act in his long-range self-interest. He demonstrates no rational code of values. Again, the author has a false, cartoon image of what selfishness means in Objectivism.

      6. Rather than address disagreements with Rand's philosophical ideas (of which the author is apparently unaware) he proceeds to attack Rand personally, calling her a psychopath and then "proving" his case by comparing the misinformed, superficial image he has of her personally to the cartoon character image he has of the selfish psychopath. Commenting any further would be a waste of my time and yours.

      You can't simply read "Atlas Shrugged" and think you've understood Ayn Rand. This is particularly true if you come into the book with a liberal perspective, because you're going to read a lot of your prejudices about altruism and selfishness into Rand's characters. I'm not saying that you'll ever come to agree with her--you probably won't. What I'm saying is that if you are going to be honest with yourself and informed in your attacks on Rand, you need to take the time to actually understand what she's saying. So at a minimum you would need to have read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" on the fiction side, and then from her non-fiction, "The Virtue of Selfishness," "Philosophy: Who Needs It," and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." I'd recommend following that up with Leonard Peikoff's "The Objectivist Philosophy of Ayn Rand." Only at that point would you (perhaps) have a sufficient understanding of Rand's philosophy to offer intelligent objections to it--assuming that you approached the project with a genuine desire to understand, and not simply a mindless, emotion-driven impulse to destroy.

    • 1 year ago
  • samonster34
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +2
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      And that's why I adore you to pieces. If your mindset were the one representative of all libertarians, I'd say, sign me up! But their stubborn refusal to admit corporations cannot be trusted is just unforgivable, and baffling, considering the enormous archive of evidence stacked up from every oil spill, product recall, class-action suit, yadda yadda yadda... If they trust CEO's so much, why aren't they backing Donald Trump? They might as well, because it's not like they would be doing much to stop him or anyone else from carving his face on Mt. Rushmore. Freedom is important but the stupid and bad people need to be managed or they fuck everything up.

    • 1 year ago
  • tlbuffin
  • SFirman
  • crash_text_dummy
    • +4
      crash_text_dummy  

    • the psychopathology of ayn rand is NOT her
      it's in her readers
      for fucks sake
      she wrote a couple of novels about men with balls she would like to meet

      look at her READERS
      *are they a cluster fuck of misanthropic goof wads? i think so*

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • crash_text_dummy
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • crash_text_dummy
  • EmileZ
    • +3
      EmileZ [removed]  

    • I first heard the plot of "Atlas Shrugged" described by Ron Johnson during one of the Wisconsin senatorial debates last year. Apparently it is his favorite book. It is a crying shame that this ninny managed to unseat Russ Feingold in last year's election.

      Anyway, you have further piqued my (morbid) curiousity with your comment. I think I will read it. It may be good for a laugh.

      Thanks!!!

    • 1 year ago
  • EmileZ
    • +7
      EmileZ [removed]  
    • EmileZ:

      In perusing the Wikipedia "Atlas Shrugged" page I came across the following quote:

      "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

      -Paul Krugman

    • 1 year ago
  • Leen61
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • kennymotown
  • remanns
  • Kelton_Baker
    • -2
      Kelton_Baker  

    • While Ayn Rand and her philosophical rhetoric has serious defects, she borrowed from a long academic tradition of classical liberal thought that is vibrant and academically sound.

    • 1 year ago
  • Milieu
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • Leen61
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • Leen61
  • Cruzankenny
    • +3
      Cruzankenny  

    • I found it Ironic, those present day individuals espousing 'going Galt', and what the character John Galt would have thought of the stock broker, hedge fund owner and those who made a living pursuing hostile takeovers. These are the exact people he despised in the book "Atlas Shrugged'.
      I can't read an Ayn Rand novel without a mental picture of smokestacks spewing pollution into the air. An environmentalist she was not, an intellectual snob was what she was.

    • 1 year ago
  • Milieu
    • +3
      Milieu  
    • Cruzankenny:

      "An environmentalist she was not, an intellectual snob was what she was.'

      Assuming intellectual is going a bit far, I would say. Yes, she knew lots of Big Words.

      " in·tel·lec·tu·al

      a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level."

      Greed and self-indulgence are not "Complex Forms" of anything. They are the most base level of existence.

    • 1 year ago
  • Cruzankenny
    • +2
      Cruzankenny  
    • Milieu:

      I knew when I used the words 'intellectual snob' I would get called on it. I meant it to mean, if you didn't think like her, she wanted nothing to do with you. In that manner she was a snob and as it concerned her philosophy of objectivity, I determined it to be intellectual snobs.
      I'm sure we've all met one or two in life.

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +2
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • Cruzankenny:

      http://tinyurl.com/UP-VOTED

      Well said. John Wayne's image of machismo was embraced by conservatives despite the fact he was a draft dodger. Reagan's policies sucked, but his infantile soundbite will resonate forever: "Mr. Gorby, Tear Down That Wall!", completely ignoring Gorbachev's role in ending the cold war. Image is everything. Ask Izod.

    • 1 year ago
  • Cody_Fuller
    • -2
      Cody_Fuller  

    • I thought her books were well written and well thought out. Her personality is not at all what i got from her books... more so an appreciation for anything that I personally have created or worked hard to acquire. She may or may not have a been clinically psychotic but it's hard to argue that when you create something you don't want it stripped away form you. I am not a conservative and i am not a liberal, what i am is someone who appreciates good literature and the lessons learned from them.

    • 1 year ago
  • Milieu
  • Cruzankenny
    • +3
      Cruzankenny  
    • Cody_Fuller:

      I thought her books could have been edited to be 1/3 smaller and been better written. But I will admit to have read them all, twice. Once in high school and once 35 years later. I was amazed at the difference I felt reading them the second time. Not in a good way.

    • 1 year ago
  • Mark701
    • +5
      Mark701  

    • If you examine Ayn Rands childhood her attitude becomes understandable (though still unacceptable)

      She was the daughter of a pharmacist and consequently part of the bourgeois class. Her father's pharmacy was seized by the Bolsheviks i.e ultra leftists who were self appointed representatives of the working class, during the Russian Revolution. The Rands fled St Petersburg to the Crimea which was at the time, under control of czar loyalists. They eventually returned to Saint Petersburg where the faced poverty and near starvation.

      Based solely on this, the reason for her hatred of the working class becomes clear. To her the working class represented the Bolsheviks who took everything from her family while the businessmen (like her daddy) the unappreciated heroes. Add to this a fundamentally bitter personality ( on one occasion, when a school assignment called for her to write about the joys of childhood, she instead wrote what she later recalled as "a scathing denunciation" of childhood as inferior to the intellectual condition of adults--Wikipedia ) and her psychosis comes into perspective. But she was not only devoid of humanity but also of common sense. She didn't seem to understand (accept?) that without the class she considered parasites (i.e. workers) there would be no John Galt's let alone people to buy his products.

      In fact, if everyone lived according to Rands criteria, the human race would have gone extinct a thousands of years ago.

    • 1 year ago
  • Haley35
  • crash_text_dummy
  • RaceBannon
  • kennymotown
  • RaceBannon
  • kennymotown
  • tverdell
  • RaceBannon
  • savroD
    • +4
      savroD  

    • Interesting....
      Objectivism is ok if you are a have. If you are a have-not, the republiCON plan is for you to die, after you do their work. Ayn Rand was an interesting figure; however, there was never any need for this additional kind of discrimination. The problem is that so many fools can be taken in.
      Thanks Kenny!

    • 1 year ago
  • kennymotown
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • mikeywes
    • +4
      mikeywes  

    • Alas it is the American (Romanic culture) way...I am sure I will be pilloried but that is the foundation of our economic (and therefore our moral and social) culture....only the strong survive. It sucks but unless there is a culture wide transformation we will always be on the outside while the soulless aggressive corporatists aggregate wealth on the backs of everyone else. Trickle down is just that....a trickle

    • 1 year ago
  • kennymotown
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +2
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • mikeywes:

      Mikey, it does suck, but you're right. I would say only the aware and politically active survive. If we give in to the Koch brothers' MIC agenda, it will be due to the American public's refusal to believe we can be in a state of emergency without the flashing lights and loud noises they seem to expect from a disaster.

      Rupert Murdoch is not on our side. It is up to the people to gather and disseminate information. Interactive news media is the best thing to happen to the free press in ages, but, like everything else, it is being wrested out of the people's control by corporate dictators. We took a huge hit from the HP's moderation gestapo, and HP's subsequent tanking under AOL. Yet, even with compromised integrity, that forum still remains more useful than this one due to a larger readership and more effective design.

      We need to change that, as Current's policies are less restrictive and here we have the ability to communicate off-forum without the hassle of exchanging emails. We can edit and delete our own comments and upload media, without worrying about a 250 word cutoff. It would be great to have some text editing features, such as bold, italics and underlining, and a better way to tie replies to the original comments as it gets confusing, but we've got it good here, and it seems to be getting better. Already, there has been a nice change to the murky front page.

      My main concern is that if Current does become more popular, the powers that be will try to dial it down- "Oh, everyone's looking now, put on your Sunday Best, people!" . I hope they realize this forum is much more than entertainment- it's an important communication link between people across the country and all over the world. Nothing kills democracy faster than censorship.

    • 1 year ago
  • antiutopia
  • tverdell
    • 0
      tverdell  
    • antiutopia:

      You are right about the Dems being politically inept.
      The Repubs only hold the house yet they are getting more of their agenda across.

      Go figure.

      And oh the irony of supporting goals you are supposed to oppose, well put.

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +4
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • antiutopia:

      Obstructionism negates control- that is the point. You may be "aware" of it, but your comments clearly demonstrate you don't understand it at all.

      "that is not the whole story, however, and those paying know better than to think so"

      Those paying? What are you talking about?

      "Being obstructed in some goals does not mean you have to be an active proponent of policies you once promised to revoke"

      Apparently, you just don't seem to grasp that obstructionism is extortion, with the goal being a forced compromise.

      And once again, you utterly ignore the fact that the women of this country are under siege from the slew of legislation attacking reproductive rights. This affects 50% of the U.S. population, and is supported ONLY by conservatives.

      "Keep dreaming your moronic Star Wars dream, though. At least it allows you to enjoy and feel justified in you hatred."

      Obviously, you chafe at being included among the "bad guys". Too bad. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution. You can't be an asshole and expect people to treat you like a decent guy. Here's a wild thought- why don't you try NOT being an asshole?

    • 1 year ago
  • antiutopia
  • tverdell
    • -1
      tverdell  
    • Kitten_of_D00M:

      I have to agree with anitutopia on this point.

      He offered a sincere intellectual argument and you respond with insults.

      If you think he is wrong, then challenge him in a like manner.

    • 1 year ago
  • tverdell
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +2
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • tverdell:

      WRONG. IGNORING THE ATTACK ON WOMEN BY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS A GIANT FAIL. I've made several concise arguments only to be told by that piece of shit that I'm "parroting talking points", which is all the Randian idiots have done on this thread since day one. You've lost all credibility with me by failing to recognize *I* offered the sincere argument, over and over, while antiutopia perpetrated one cowardly dodge after another. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. So, tverdell, you've turned out to be a hypocritical cunt, too. Big deal. Bring it on.

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +3
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • antiutopia:

      WOW, you're oblivious. How much of the Republican agenda is theirs and how much is the Koch brothers? Half the country deserves the cannibal label, for their collusion with the Military Industrial Complex to devour every last individual freedom we have. While our rights go up in smoke you're crying over someone calling you a cannibal in a net forum? What a fucking pussy.

    • 1 year ago
  • antiutopia
  • antiutopia
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +3
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • antiutopia:

      We're hardly passive. We're fighting tooth and claw against an MIC agenda that a collusive media refuses to expose. And what exactly is your political affiliation?

      I'm seeing countless cowards on forums these days take pot shots at Dems without fessing up to their own political parties, past or present. They'll espouse a conservative point of view, but then haughtily deny being a conservative when confronted.

      Fickle independents and Libertarians who caved last minute to the Republican or Tea Party when they found themselves actually standing in the polling booth were what really sank the 2010 elections, not lack of Dem turnout. All the Dems I know were out in full force. "Undecided" voters are only undecided between elections- they just don't want to be held accountable for the stupid decisions they've made at the polls. My voting record is an open book- 100% Dem since I registered in 1982. Put up or shut up.

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +2
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • tverdell:

      Placing accountability where it belongs is not playing victim. Conservatives are the clear enemy, openly attacking personal liberties and social programs. Dems and the small lefty third parties are the only ones openly fighting back. Libertarians have been the consummate fence sitters, throwing rocks at both sides, but offering no solution other than their deluded brand of watered-down anarchy. What's your voting record?

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +2
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • antiutopia:

      "Bush Lite" falls into the same category as "Obamacare". More wrongwing propaganda. Believe it at your peril. If the left takes another hit in 2012, it will be your loss, too, no matter where you stand politically (assuming you finally do manage to get off your knees).

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +2
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • antiutopia:

      Maybe you need to re-read the article. This thread is about Rand's PSYCHOPATHIC/SOCIOPATHIC influence on Republicans, with the focus being on their embracing of her tenets as validation for their willful selfishness.

      Only half of the Republican/Teathugger objective pertains to instituting their destructive economic policies- when they actually acquire a public office and fail to deliver on campaign promises, they turn to their tried-and-true base pleaser, which is their never-ending crusade to legislate their moral agenda on gay marriage and abortion.

      The misogyny inherent in the Republican & Tea Party platforms relates directly to their sociopathic disregard for others. Rand's personal views on abortion are actually immaterial, as her case for selfishness allows her followers to assert their own agenda at will. Ron Paul is the perfect example of this, as seen in his anti-choice influence on the Libertarian Party, which has only recently been rejected in an attempt to attract liberals.

      At any rate, it's ludicrous for you to dismiss the concerns of 50% of the population just because you don't have a uterus. Way to be a Randian. Go team.

    • 1 year ago
  • tlbuffin
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • antiutopia
  • antiutopia
  • antiutopia
  • antiutopia
  • tlbuffin
  • SFirman
    • +2
      SFirman  
    • Kitten_of_D00M:

      I have mostly voted democrat and am not about to change. Tea party and conservatives won't scare me. Look what happened after 2010 electons. Republican states are a mess. The tea party is unhappy with their Leader of the House. He's not doing everything they want of him. I knew he would have a problem when they were elected.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • SFirman
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +2
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • antiutopia:

      Habeas Corpus was suspended by the Bush Administration under The Military Commissions Act of 2006 for "enemy combatants", defined as anyone who has “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Bush gave himself the power to determine who could be considered an enemy combatant.

      Under what is basically martial law, ANY citizen could be declared an enemy combatant, for participating in "un-American activities", such as posting political comments on a blog or corresponding with someone else already under investigation.

      Passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was spearheaded by John McCain. Barack Obama voted against it, and once its passage appeared certain, Obama offered an amendment to limit it to five years. That amendment failed, rendering the MCA the law of the land without any time limits.

      On June 12, 2008, The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional, restoring the writ of habeas corpus.

      Only a fool would be so dismissive of such a travesty against individual rights. Not only did the MCA defy the Constitution, it took away the very LEGAL BASIS of personal freedom as set out in *1215* by the MAGNA CARTA.

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +2
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • antiutopia:

      The Patriot Act is another steaming piece of shit introduced by Rethuglicans. YES Dems have had to vote on this garbage for the countless reasons they have had to compromise on many things- but we do not INTRODUCE this crap. Dems are for the people/ Rethugs are for the corporations. It's painfully obvious to everyone except the whiny little idiots who don't understand the complex political negotiations that go on in Washington, and are too lazy to educate themselves.

      It's just so much easier to say they're all the same, and run to a joke of a party with a bare-bones platform guaranteed to give up the very last individual freedoms we have (because it takes GOVERNMENT to protect you from corporations, get it?), and abandoning social safety nets (which you'll cry to have back when ::gasp!:: you're old), while allowing corporations to run amok, despoiling our very last environmental resources- irretrievably.

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +2
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • antiutopia:

      Obama is doing the best he can under the circumstances, and considerably better than any Republican has since Eisenhower. You've got no one better. Democrats are facing an absolutely PSYCHOTIC level of opposition in Washington. It's destroying the country, but conservatives just don't care- they'd burn down their own house to scorch a liberal. THAT is stupid. And it does NOT prove Dems are ineffective, just that Rethugs and Teabaggers are uncooperative DICKS, no matter how much propaganda conservatives spew to the contrary.

      The Obama Administration does not even hesitate to state they disagree with the tax cut extension for the richest 2%, but it was extended under duress to get unemployment passed. How do I know? It's in the canned answer to the email I sent the White House:

      "Thank you for writing. President Obama has heard from many Americans about the recent tax cut agreement, and we want to make sure you are aware of some relevant information about this important issue.

      President Obama is committed to doing what is right for the American people, for jobs, and for economic growth. Because of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, working families will be able to keep their tax cuts, those looking for work will be able to keep their unemployment insurance, and job creation will be spurred by payroll tax cuts and investment incentives. Independent economic experts have concluded that, taken together, this package of tax cuts should significantly accelerate the pace of our Nation's economic recovery.

      This bill was a compromise, and like all compromises, there were some provisions in the bill that President Obama did not agree with, particularly the temporary extension of tax breaks to the wealthiest two percent of Americans and a more generous treatment of the estate tax than is warranted. But President Obama was not willing to allow taxes to go up for middle-class families or to cut vital support for people who are looking for work in these tough times."

      Our PRESIDENT is describing the Rethug's EXTORTION in a FORM LETTER. If that doesn't tell you how bad the situation is, you're beyond hope.

      What's your voting record?

    • 1 year ago
  • antiutopia
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +1
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • antiutopia:

      That's it? I just handed you your shredded ass in a bucket. And you come back with "nuh-uh"? You really are a lazy git. Since you can't read, and you refuse to claim a political affiliation, and your mythical "platform" for 2012 apparently has yet to materialize, why not take your last shot at integrity and prove to the world you're not the political coward I'm so very sure you are:

      What. Is. Your. Voting. Record.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • SFirman
  • SFirman
    • +1
      SFirman  
    • Kitten_of_D00M:

      Compared to Bush Obama has accomplished a lot. In just two years..He did compromise on the Bush tax cut, only too keep tax cuts for the middle class, plus payroll tax cut, plus extention of umemployeement benefits.. It was time for the tea party house. They would never have compromised with him.He must be given credit for what he has got done,

    • 1 year ago
  • Saladin
  • WeAreChangeKy
    • +3
      WeAreChangeKy  

    • I'm confused. I agree she's crazy. However, your post points towards Republicans while many of Obama's staff are devout followers of hers and have published writings professing as much.

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +8
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • Nephwrack:

      Don't underestimate the horrendous level of obstructionism he's facing. The only reason he's still alive is that the Koch brothers don't want to make a martyr of him. I think his situation (and ours) is much worse than we realize.

    • 1 year ago
  • tverdell
  • tverdell
  • kennymotown
    • +2
      kennymotown  
    • WeAreChangeKy:

      There in lies the problem, most economic advisors are sociopaths the President has been getting bad advice and it is echoed by Republican leaning financial sector. I think the people get it, we are awake!

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • Nephwrack
    • +5
      Nephwrack  

    • i'm starting to wonder how much shanklin's firm pays current to allow the sock puppets. it's painfully obvious that the sock puppets are there. the real question is, why current? a self proclaimed left leaning/progressive/green website...shanklin has to know that he's not winning any hearts or minds here. just the fact that he's bussing in his stooges to post here raises questions.

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
    • +3
      Kitten_of_D00M  
    • Nephwrack:

      Maybe they don't know? I like the hands-off moderation but shanklin is a disruptive little shithead that doesn't contribute anything, so I don't care what happens to him. That said, it's really easy to hide socks. Huffpo has quite a few safeguards in place, but I still have several ID's there, and that's after getting kicked off. If you know how they're identifying you, it's easy to prevent it.

    • 1 year ago
  • sffsmessiah
  • Nephwrack
  • sffsmessiah
  • Nephwrack
    • +3
      Nephwrack  

    • anyone else recognize the invisible man? here's a hint. control-f and search the page for the pseudo-words statist or collectivist.

    • 1 year ago
12345
1 - 100 of 468
kennymotown
more from Community:
from the community

top videos