thegoldenmackid's thoughts on PRSI...

[thegoldenmackid]

and political discussion in general.

Since the other side of the aisle gets five times a day to post their current ramblings regarding the world, thought I'd take a shot. To start: I'd consider myself on the far left, especially on social issues.

I stayed out of the PSRI for a long time, occasionally posting mainly on non-political stories mainly because I felt that the discussion of political nature were fruitless and aggravating, boy was I right. My frustration is directed at what I will call the "far-right" others will identify as them as the "Tea Party" portion, and worse some might even label this group as "Republican" or even "Conservative." This group is easily the most covered and most vocal portion of the electorate. (Yes, even CNN gives you more coverage then they do the moderates) This group seems to focus its complaints on a variety of "talking points" including, but not limited to: Obama being socialist, healthcare reform, the increase in "Big Government," Obama's citizenship, taxes and gun control. This group seems to be championed by a couple of figures, most notably Fox News and its group of anchors, Rep. Michele Bachmann and to some extent Sarah Palin. Anyone confused? Good.
(not to suggest that the entire movement is represented by those issues or figures, but generally that's who I'm placing in this category)

My issue is two-fold. First, Republicans take back your party. This is a vocal minority, but I doubt that most Republicans want to be associated with the broad-blanket anti-Obama movement. It seems odd that for so long racism was kept in our closets, but now that we have a president who is (half) African-American, it's suddenly okay again to be racist? I mean that is fine if one is racist, but generally iThink there are many who don't want to be considered "racist," nor do I think Michael Steele (or Cheney, or either Bush, or McCain or Huckabee) would like to be considered as such. I understand that there is a crisis within the party, and while I would generally accept that is being good for my political beliefs - it is not. (That's part two) Whatever the case, if you can't find unity within your party at least find unity in the Saidian approach of determining what one isn't - perhaps look to those with the Adolf Obama/Barack Hitler signs before you look at avoiding being associated with the Democrats.

The second and possibly larger part of this is what I have touched upon a few times, the lack of discussion that can be had. The discussion that takes place today is not productive. In the PSRI we have discussions of how Obama is to blame for expanding the deficit three-fold over the not-passed health care reform? And that's when questions were being responded to. The goal of the anti-Obama/far-right movement seems to be to cause disruption, that's great and all, but the show has to stop at some point. The vocal minority has now stopped productive parts of the American system of democracy to exist and it's the Republicans that seem to be hurt the most. Rather then attempting to do something to change the healthcare bill, we get extreme discussions of socialism. News flash, the bill is probably going to pass in some form, ti would have a lot less chance of passing if the right decided to make actual indictments of the bill as opposed to conspiracy theories.

Lastly, my favorite portion of the movement. Socialism ≠ fascism. Hitler ≠ socialist. The wonderful pictures I get to see of Obama and Adolf as one are great and all, but let's take a step back. Constantly asking for birth certificates? Racism? Blaming a certain person for the ills of the country? Sounds like the third reich, a tad bit.

That's all.

[Thomas Veil]

True Republicans are out wandering in the desert, or they have become independents or Democrats. It is the Tea Party loonies that are controlling the party now. Whether the genuine Republicans can take back the party is unknown, but I'd love it if we could reach across the aisle and talk to the right again some day, instead of simply listening the current batch of righties assail us with hatred and delusional ideas.

As to the PRSI forum suffering at the hands of a few: I posted my own reaction to that elsewhere (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8926266&postcount=93). In effect I said that I'm not about to let one or two hate-filled people control my life, "making" me waste tons of time responding to their utter bilge. I have faith that 95% of the MR community reading those people's posts know they're utter bilge. I'd much rather spend time responding to thoughtful people like you or lee or hulugu, than waste my time on trolls. Lately if I answer trolls at all, it tends to be with a witty retort or a link that disproves them. More than that, they don't deserve.

[Desertrat]

A few general points: One is that there has been a general schism in the upper echelons of the national-level Republican Party since way back in the JFK era, if not before. There are the basic, conservative people, but the main voice has been of what today are called RINOs: Republicans In Name Only. The modern example is Sen. McCain. He's in no way a small-c conservative in the classic sense--which is why many conservative voters sta yed home.

Small-c conservatives, the actual majority in the Republican Party, are in no way Neo-Con in their views, although there is some amount of agreement. But the Neo-Cons are just as Statist as are capital-l Liberals. Centralization of power is important, albeit in different arenas.

This creates beaucoup confusion when using labels in discussions.

Interlude: The majority of the tea party people are not kooks. They are protesting a pattern of monetary policy of trillion-dollar deficits, proposed higher levels of taxation, and the inefficacy of the present system of bailouts of Wall Street to the detriment of Main Street. That the media people don't see them in this manner reflects upon the competence or common sense of the media's employees.

Okay, back to the OP:

"This group seems to focus its complaints on a variety of "talking points" including, but not limited to: Obama being socialist, healthcare reform, the increase in "Big Government," Obama's citizenship, taxes and gun control."

Obama is indeed socialist, by his own words in his own autobiography. He cannot refer to his mentors as mentors and not be full of BS if he says he is not socialist. His mentors are admittedly socialist in their views. And Saul Alinsky is on record as advocating the destruction of the US system, not its reform.

Big Government? He obviously favors it. Fannie Mae is now de facto a federal agency, controlling some 85% of all home mortgages. The major investment banks are now either partially owned by the government or their policies are heavily swayed by it. The takeover of the once-private-sector businesses of GM and Chrysler are "merely news"--so we now have "Government Motors". Question: How is it constitutional for a politician of any level of office to force the firing of the CEO of a private corporation?

This so-called healthcare reform in no way addresses the causes of the high costs of medicine and the resultant high cost of health insurance. I note in passing that many of the high costs have come about from government involvement in the "world of medicine" and none of those issues are discussed.

Gun control? The calls for gun control laws is publicly stated as a desire to reduce violent crimes involving firearms, right? It has been repeatedly shown by statisticians' exhaustive studies that no gun control law has ever resulted in any reduction in the rate of violent crimes involving firearms. Anybody who calls for or who votes for gun control laws is operating on wishful thinking, if one cares to be extremely charitable about such calls. Obama has a pro-gun-control voting record, and has appointed a US Attorney General who is publicly outspoken in opposition to the Second Amendment. One's personal views about firearms, pro or con, are irrelevant to the issue of efficacy or utility of such laws.

Race? Sorry, but it's mostly Obama himself and people of his political party and among his supporters who have raised the race issue the most and the most publicly. They're playing the race card just as much and in as shysterly a fashion as in the OJ Simpson trial. The Prof. Gates affair is adequate support for this view of mine. Me? I could care less if he's green with purple polka dots. I'm against his political views and his monetary policies.

During the summer of 2008, I was bitching about the idiocies of the Bush/Congress bail-out BS and then about the foolishness of TARP. During that time, however, I predicted that Obama would continue this same idiocy--and he danged sure has, with predictable results. I'm fed up with his whining about what he inherited from the Bushies. He knew the problems existed, back in June of last year. Nobody forced him to take the job; he begged for it, he got it, and by virtue of continuing Bush's policies has made the whole deal his own baby. Okay, fine, now let him rock it.

Trouble is, he doesn't have a clue about how to solve this financial debacle. He and Geithner and pMSNBC can do all the spin-spin they want, but when you're going down the wrong path you don't get where you want to go.

This next three years is gonna be just really, really interesting...

'Rat

[jessica.]

I actually would love to take this seriously if you could go without replacing "I think" with "iThink". :cool:

But generally speaking, don't you get it? There will always be a side that is anti-insert president's name here. I think when you realize that this will always be true you'll stop worrying about it so much. I also believe, or the way I read it, is that you just don't seem to think that a Republican can appreciate Obama. This is also untrue and without basis, but you are entitled to your opinions.

That being said, I think there is a great deal of confusion surrounding party labels and the confusion doesn't lie with just you. I firmly believe that some republicans aren't even sure what brings them to the point where they call themselves a republican. I also believe that youth today is driven towards the sensational nature of Obama, you included ... no matter how far left or right you lean.

Though on one point, you are right about the healthcare bill as it will pass in some form. Based on what you write I am unsure you can really understand why there is so much disruption over it, but as an adult who supports herself it is something to be disruptive about.

My thought, if you have a voice and wish to use it then never think that what you say or do is fruitless. If you truly believe that then your post is fruitless too; which it really isn't.

[Iscariot]

Obama is indeed socialist, by his own words in his own autobiography. He cannot refer to his mentors as mentors and not be full of BS if he says he is not socialist.

No he isn't. I don't say this because I like Obama, or because I have any desire to defend him, but because I live in a nation with actual socialism. Obama is right of centre. Your statement betrays one of two ideological issues; either you do not know what socialism is or your political position is so far removed from Obama that you are willing to skew one side of the fulcrum. In either case, you have the experience, knowledge and rationality to know better.

[jessica.]

No he isn't. I don't say this because I like Obama, or because I have any desire to defend him, but because I live in a nation with actual socialism. Obama is right of centre. Your statement betrays one of two ideological issues; either you do not know what socialism is or your political position is so far removed from Obama that you are willing to skew one side of the fulcrum. In either case, you have the experience, knowledge and rationality to know better.

That is very well put.

[quagmire]

Big Government? He obviously favors it. Fannie Mae is now de facto a federal agency, controlling some 85% of all home mortgages. The major investment banks are now either partially owned by the government or their policies are heavily swayed by it. The takeover of the once-private-sector businesses of GM and Chrysler are "merely news"--so we now have "Government Motors". Question: How is it constitutional for a politician of any level of office to force the firing of the CEO of a private corporation?


Chrysler is majority owned by Fiat. The US government holds a minority stake( I believe it is 20%).

Wagoner wasn't fired. He was asked to step down by the Auto Task Force and he obliged. You may interpret it as being fired, but fact remains Wagoner left on his own free will. Wagoner was opposed to the bankruptcy filing. He feared it would have a negative effect on GM's image and further kill consumer confidence in GM. He also opposed getting rid of any brands until it was practically forced upon him. He was the only person to vote no when the old GM board voted to close down Pontiac.

[obeygiant]

Obama is right of centre.

Most will agree that in order to get elected president one has to adopt centrist ideologies/actions. In the entire "is obama a socialist" debate, its even difficult for self-proclaimed socialists to agree on what it is because the definition is broad. While he isn't textbook Marxist he was enough of a socialist to be endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America in 1995-- unless they don't know what a socialist is either.

[thegoldenmackid]

I actually would love to take this seriously if you could go without replacing "I think" with "iThink". :cool:

But generally speaking, don't you get it? There will always be a side that is anti-insert president's name here. I think when you realize that this will always be true you'll stop worrying about it so much. I also believe, or the way I read it, is that you just don't seem to think that a Republican can appreciate Obama. This is also untrue and without basis, but you are entitled to your opinions.

That being said, I think there is a great deal of confusion surrounding party labels and the confusion doesn't lie with just you. I firmly believe that some republicans aren't even sure what brings them to the point where they call themselves a republican. I also believe that youth today is driven towards the sensational nature of Obama, you included ... no matter how far left or right you lean.

Though on one point, you are right about the healthcare bill as it will pass in some form. Based on what you write I am unsure you can really understand why there is so much disruption over it, but as an adult who supports herself it is something to be disruptive about.

My thought, if you have a voice and wish to use it then never think that what you say or do is fruitless. If you truly believe that then your post is fruitless too; which it really isn't.
I will avoid the "iThink" for this:
I do understand the anti-x president idea, but I really think it's a little different. The past administration and the one before that did not see the same type of response to it. While my utopian idea of discussion in the political sense won't ever come to fruition - I believe that the country is taking massive steps backwards. The closet racism and ignorance that seems to exist today in the Obama era seems very unique to the times.

I don't believe that "Republicans," "conservatives," "Conservatives," or those anywhere on the political scale can't appreciate Obama. I don't really see that as any part of the formation of my jumbled thoughts. But you can explain to me what I'm thinking.

My points were somewhat directed at this idea that the "Republican" party is very lost, but the representation it gets via those on the far-right cannot be representative of the party as a whole or even a majority.

Sure, I thought it was great Obama was black. Quite frankly, I was more thankful:
A. Bush era came to an end
B. Palin was not elected
C. There was some hope at social progress

It's great and all that Obama had a twitter, but I would like DADT overturned a whole lot quicker.

As to the healthcare discussion. I have some understanding, however biased it may be, of the bill. I have no clue of how it will affect me upon the loss of my college/parental coverage and the comparison between the before and after - that is something I doubt anyone could really know, given the lack of a passed bill.

Your last points are well-taken and I will end my pitty-fest.

[IntheNet]

Obama is indeed socialist, by his own words in his own autobiography. He cannot refer to his mentors as mentors and not be full of BS if he says he is not socialist. His mentors are admittedly socialist in their views. And Saul Alinsky is on record as advocating the destruction of the US system, not its reform.

Excellent points here 'Rat... I am familiar with Communist author Saul Alinsky's 'work (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm)' and it should be footnoted and documented, particularly the link with Obama (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4784), since for many liberals herein may not be familiar with Communist Alinsky's call for the destruction, as you said, of the U.S. system and Obama's acceptance, indeed welcome of Alinsky's views. That's pretty shocking on its face. Moreover, Obama's socialistic tendency was made clear early on; in his book as you note but also more recently; recall candidate Obama's asinine remarks about how "bitter people in small towns cling to religion," very similar to the sentiment expressed by Karl Marx’s comment about "religion being the opiate of the masses." As we progress now almost 12 months into Obama's destruction of America, we see citizens rights abrogated daily, capitalism mocked, and the rapid growth of the federal government, all the while his liberal minions backing his socialism like lemmings. He is a repugnant leader to be sure and as his ratings drop and the increasing likelihood of Obama being a single-term president based on polls, many citizens ponder on how much damage he will do to the Republic while pursuing his socialistic agenda... Nonetheless, I just wanted to pass on my thanks for your post.

[Rt&Dzine]

Just to clear something up. Many of the right wingers here think only in extreme terms. Everything is black or white. Either you love Obama or you hate him. Sorry, not so. Everyone I know who voted for Obama did so as the lesser of evils. When Palin joined the game even more people decided to vote for him. A vote against the religious right.

[leekohler]

Just to clear something up. Many of the right wingers here think only in extreme terms. Everything is black or white. Either you love Obama or you hate him. Sorry, not so. Everyone I know who voted for Obama did so as the lesser of evils. When Palin joined the game even more people decided to vote for him. A vote against the religious right.

You got that right. I hope they run Palin next election.

[XNine]

Ya know, if one were to actually take time to look at the fundamentals of the Nazi party ("The National Socialist Party"), they are more in line with fundamentals of the Republicans than anyone, especially the actual socialists.

Shouldn't these people then be comparing Bush to Hitler and not Obama?

[Zombie Acorn]

Ya know, if one were to actually take time to look at the fundamentals of the Nazi party ("The National Socialist Party"), they are more in line with fundamentals of the Republicans than anyone, especially the actual socialists.

Shouldn't these people then be comparing Bush to Hitler and not Obama?

They did.

http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_dansweeney/hitler-bush.jpg

http://conservativedigest.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bush_hitler2.jpg

http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/adolf-hitler-bush.jpg

http://www.black-and-right.com/wp-content/uploads/hitler_bush.jpg

Don't really have to continue..

[it5five]

...to be endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America in 1995-- unless they don't know what a socialist is either.

DSA knows what an actual socialist is, however, as someone who was for some time affiliated with this group, and was in contact with some of the main organizers of the group in NYC, let me clarify something. The DSA believes in a gradual shift toward socialism. They believe that, in America, working through the Democratic party, at first, is the only way to achieve this gradual change. They endorsed every Democratic nominee for President since Clinton, if my memory serves me well. The fact that they endorsed a Democrat - sadly, what passes for a progressive party in this country - does not say anything about that particular candidate, but rather, it speaks about the philosophy of the Democratic Socialists of America.

[Iscariot]

endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America in 1995-- unless they don't know what a socialist is either.

Why would they need him to be a socialist to endorse him? This is little more than guilt by association writ large.

[Lyle]

I do understand the anti-x president idea, but I really think it's a little different. The past administration and the one before that did not see the same type of response to it.Yeah, actually, they did. It always seems worse when it's your guy who's under attack.

I was working myself up into a long response to your original post, but I think I'm going to try to keep it short and to the point:

What you need to understand is that the polarization that you see on the cable news networks, and the blogs, and especially here in the PRSI forums, represents (for the most part) the fringes of the political scene in the U.S. Seriously.

[obeygiant]

DSA knows what an actual socialist is, however, as someone who was for some time affiliated with this group, and was in contact with some of the main organizers of the group in NYC, let me clarify something. The DSA believes in a gradual shift toward socialism. They believe that, in America, working through the Democratic party, at first, is the only way to achieve this gradual change. They endorsed every Democratic nominee for President since Clinton, if my memory serves me well. The fact that they endorsed a Democrat - sadly, what passes for a progressive party in this country - does not say anything about that particular candidate, but rather, it speaks about the philosophy of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Well I can see that the democratic party isn't the boiling pot of socialist water that you prefer, which to me is a good thing. In america, perhaps the best you can get is lukewarm socialism.

Why would they need him to be a socialist to endorse him? This is little more than guilt by association writ large.

It stands contrary to reason that the DSA would endorse someone who doesn't fall in line with their philosophy of a "gradual shift toward socialism."

[beatzfreak]

It stands contrary to reason that the DSA would endorse someone who doesn't fall in line with their philosophy of a "gradual shift toward socialism."

Not according to Frank Llewellyn, the national director of Democratic Socialists of America:

All this Republican chatter is letting me make a living telling people that Obama and his administration are not socialist - and as National Director of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the United States' largest socialist organization, I ought to know. Just, like the New Deal-era Roosevelt haters, these Republicans erroneously term a president who is trying to save capitalism from itself a socialist.

more (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/22/opinion/main5180886.shtml?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesAreaMain;cbsnewsLeadStoriesHeadlines)

[Queso]

No US President, past or present, bear any similarity to socialists as the definition stands. Maybe a few of the anti-Obama crowd should be a little more honest in exactly why they don't like him.

I suspect it's less to do with his politics and more to do with not having Jesusland advocates in the White House.

[Iscariot]

It stands contrary to reason that the DSA would endorse someone who doesn't fall in line with their philosophy of a "gradual shift toward socialism."

It's good to know we finally have a working definition of socialism -- everyone to the left of John McCain -- eh comrade?

[adroit]

It's amazing to me that socialism is spoken about as if it's a bad thing.

[Zombie Acorn]

It's amazing to me that socialism is spoken about as if it's a bad thing.

Its not what America was built on, its not what we are about. We can take pieces out of socialism and use them if they benefit the whole at minimal expense. At the point you diminish the triumph of one class to reward the failures of another in every aspect you will have a very mediocre country on your hands.

If mediocrity is your goal then socialism is excellent.

[yojitani]

It's amazing to me that socialism is spoken about as if it's a bad thing.

This is the land of failed labor unions, McCarthyism, red baiting, and witch hunts. What do you expect?

At the point you celebrate the triumph of one class for exploiting another in every aspect you will have a very mediocre country on your hands.

Corrected.

[Eraserhead]

Its not what America was built on, its not what we are about. We can take pieces out of socialism and use them if they benefit the whole at minimal expense.

Agreed.

At the point you diminish the triumph of one class to reward the failures of another in every aspect you will have a very mediocre country on your hands.

Given it's starting point after WW2 as the worlds biggest power and the only one not ravaged by war and corruption the US has performed pretty mediocrely. Especially in the last 30 years where outside of the IT industry the Europeans and the Chinese among others have done very well.

[Desertrat]

Funny how folks get all defensive about definitions of "Socialist".

Remember when Norman Thomas quit running for the presidency? What he said at his press conference when he announced he'd no longer be a candidate? Basically, it was that he no longer needed to run. The 1932 platform of the Socialist Party of America had been enacted into law.

Government control without an ownership position or a government minority-partner ownership: What's the practical difference? Anybody with a significant amount of stock in a corporation is gonna get listened to--particularly when there's a steel fist inside any velvet glove. DOJ, IRS, SEC...

But what the heck. I'll settle for "Statist" in that Obama believes in an ever-stronger central government. That's at the center of every speech he's given.

Oh: Anybody here gonna try and tell me that Keynes wasn't a Socialist? He sure thought he was. His notions on economics have been in play since the 1930s, and they're for-sure being continued by our fearless leaders. Which of course is a very large part of why this country is in such deep financial doo-doo, right now.

[Zombie Acorn]

Agreed.



Given it's starting point after WW2 as the worlds biggest power and the only one not ravaged by war and corruption the US has performed pretty mediocrely. Especially in the last 30 years where outside of the IT industry the Europeans and the Chinese among others have done very well.

The US has performed anything but mediocre, we have the world's top colleges, we outperform in scientific R&D, we have the most advances in IT, computers, drugs and other technologies, and we are the most powerful nation in the world militarily.

We ship all of our manufacturing work to China because they can do it cheaply which has boosted their economy quite a bit. Look at most European country's GDPs for an example of mediocrity.

[Peterkro]

Oh: Anybody here gonna try and tell me that Keynes wasn't a Socialist? He sure thought he was. His notions on economics have been in play since the 1930s, and they're for-sure being continued by our fearless leaders. Which of course is a very large part of why this country is in such deep financial doo-doo, right now.


“Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion — how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and, through them, the events of history.” – John Maynard Keynes

. . an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world . . .” – John Maynard Keynes on Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital”

“I can be influenced by what seems to me to be justice and good sense; but the class war will find me on the side of the educated bourgeoisie.” – John Maynard Keynes

Incidentally can you provide a source for the Norman Thomas quote? It is much repeated by the US infantile right and aside from the half witted actor Reagan who claimed it as a quote in 1961,and who has a history of inventing quotes, there appears to be no source. I look forward to your reply.

[Eraserhead]

The US has performed anything but mediocre, we have the world's top colleges, we outperform in scientific R&D, we have the most advances in IT, computers, drugs and other technologies, and we are the most powerful nation in the world militarily.

All of which were also true at the end of WW2, except that unlike the Europeans/Japanese/Chinese you didn't have to rebuild all your infrastructure.

[Tesselator]

and political discussion in general.

Since the other side of the aisle gets five times a day to post their current ramblings regarding the world, thought I'd take a shot. To start: I'd consider myself on the far left, especially on social issues.

I stayed out of the PSRI for a long time, occasionally posting mainly on non-political stories mainly because I felt that the discussion of political nature were fruitless and aggravating, boy was I right. My frustration is directed at what I will call the "far-right" others will identify as them as the "Tea Party" portion, and worse some might even label this group as "Republican" or even "Conservative." This group is easily the most covered and most vocal portion of the electorate. (Yes, even CNN gives you more coverage then they do the moderates) This group seems to focus its complaints on a variety of "talking points" including, but not limited to: Obama being socialist, healthcare reform, the increase in "Big Government," Obama's citizenship, taxes and gun control. This group seems to be championed by a couple of figures, most notably Fox News and its group of anchors, Rep. Michele Bachmann and to some extent Sarah Palin. Anyone confused? Good.
(not to suggest that the entire movement is represented by those issues or figures, but generally that's who I'm placing in this category)

Hmm, all these issues are important to me. Some you named are constitutionally recognized natural human rights. When any governmental body or organization curtails my natural human rights by regulating or controlling any aspect of those particular issues they are acting outside of the intent of the constitution and illegally. By the constitution it is our "duty" to forcibly remove any such governments or heads of state. It's a disenfranchisement of my liberties and this country was founded on the ideas and principals of individual liberty and true equality among all men via the rule of law. When that get's trampled or even bruised slightly, it is a HUGE HUGE issue and should be for anyone who understands and abides this nation - The U.S.A.. That's it in a nut-shell for all who I know who believe as I do. There are no champions and certainly not the clowns at Fox! It has nothing to do with right or left, lib or con, D or R - although the Republican party is supposed to (according to their historical creature-hood) be very much about a few of those issues you named - like small government for example.

It's by this very rule of law and ONLY from this very rule of law that Obama's birth certificate should be an issue to anyone - for example. If the rules are that a person MUST be a natural born citizen to be the president of the USA and that citizenship comes under question (in the records and etc.) then he has to show his just as I would have to show mine - if he is to be an equal creature under the law. The second he doesn't he has refused this equality and a founding principle of this nation. So, yes, that's kind of a big deal! I have to show mine just to get a passport BTW.



My issue is two-fold. First, Republicans take back your party. This is a vocal minority, but I doubt that most Republicans want to be associated with the broad-blanket anti-Obama movement.

It might appear like a "broad blanket" to you but that would be or could be, only because you don't understand how the USA was formed and what it represents - by law! I gave you an example just above.

It seems odd that for so long racism was kept in our closets, but now that we have a president who is (half) African-American, it's suddenly okay again to be racist? I mean that is fine if one is racist, but generally iThink there are many who don't want to be considered "racist," nor do I think Michael Steele (or Cheney, or either Bush, or McCain or Huckabee) would like to be considered as such. I understand that there is a crisis within the party, and while I would generally accept that is being good for my political beliefs - it is not. (That's part two) Whatever the case, if you can't find unity within your party at least find unity in the Saidian [???] approach of determining what one isn't - perhaps look to those with the Adolf Obama/Barack Hitler signs before you look at avoiding being associated with the Democrats.

Racism is a totally different thing and almost no one I know of who is at all serious about their anti-Obamaism, has any concerns AT ALL about race. Remember, all equal because of (under) the law? That really means ALL. So, really, the only reason I can think of for you to say what you just said is to create partisanship by division and demonizations of whatever you think are "republicans". Yeah, you basically said just that anyway: ""Rep's are racists, don't be a racist, be a democrat instead."" Huh? Pretty crazy - especially since most of "us" you are trying to categorize believe strongly that both parties take their marching orders (so to speak) from the very same group of men - they are unalike in name only these days.


The second and possibly larger part of this is what I have touched upon a few times, the lack of discussion that can be had. The discussion that takes place today is not productive. In the PSRI we have discussions of how Obama is to blame for expanding the deficit three-fold over the not-passed health care reform? And that's when questions were being responded to. The goal of the anti-Obama/far-right movement seems to be to cause disruption, that's great and all, but the show has to stop at some point.

As I see it there's not much to discuss. I for one certainly do not wish to discuss my rights right out the window. It's the rule of law based on the constitution and that's that. For example can you tell me why it would be useful to discuss the merits of murder? No, the law defines it and that's pretty much that. Same with most of the "issues" you named there. So men like me, do not typically engage in unproductive "discussion". If you're in this country it is you're responsibility to understand it. If you have questions about it those who know I'm sure will answer you. But in most cases it's simply unproductive to hold a discussion debating the law of the land.


The vocal minority has now stopped productive parts of the American system of democracy to exist and it's the Republicans that seem to be hurt the most. Rather then attempting to do something to change the healthcare bill, we get extreme discussions of socialism. News flash, the bill is probably going to pass in some form, ti would have a lot less chance of passing if the right decided to make actual indictments of the bill as opposed to conspiracy theories.

Yes, I was right. At the heart of your turmoil and misunderstanding lays a fundamental misunderstanding of the country itself. We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic! We have democratically held elections but other that that we are NOT a democracy! The fundamental difference here again is individual liberty and equality under (because of) the law. In a democracy 51% control the rights and liberties of the 49%. This is commonly known as "mob rule". In our Constitutional Republic every individual is guaranteed the rights laid out in the constitution and given to man naturally (or some would say by God). Even if it occasionally means that a vast majority disagrees. Requiring drivers to wear seat-belts under penalty of law, for example, is a collectivist (socialist) idea and if debated is likely to be found unconstitutional. Basically we have the right to do as we please as long as it doesn't affect others negatively. And none of the three branches of government should be passing laws that limits these rights. When others are injured we must make restitution even with the possible forfeiture of our own lives if circumstances demand. So this is the basis for most real topics which do merit discussion. For example are others damaged when we as consenting individuals seek to engage in gay marriage, pot smoking, abortion, or even seat belt wearing. Those topics may merit discussion in a federal arena. The fundamental roll of federal government should only be to make sure the states play fair with one another in areas of commerce, interstate criminal matters, and to ensure the constitutionality of their laws and policies. In my personal opinion and as the founding principles somewhat outline: to the exclusion of just about everything else. This is the basis for demanding a small federal government. Federally evoked mandatory or compulsory health-care for example has no basis for discussion in the federal buildings of this country - and therefore is not useful to discuss - at all. If a state wants to take up this issue then that's fine. It they want to lobby for or try and organize interstate agreements to these ends then more power to them. It does not belong at the federal level by the laws of this land and there's no room IMO for even the discussion of it there - unless the state's actions are causing injury to others in some way or conflicts with the intended meaning of the constitution.


Lastly, my favorite portion of the movement. Socialism ≠ fascism. Hitler ≠ socialist. The wonderful pictures I get to see of Obama and Adolf as one are great and all, but let's take a step back. Constantly asking for birth certificates? Racism? Blaming a certain person for the ills of the country? Sounds like the third reich, a tad bit.

Socialism in a free constitutional republic such as ours seldom begins or ends without fascism - they pretty much go hand in hand. That's just the nature of things! Hitler was a kind of socialist. "Collectivist" is the better word to choose for these discussions tho. Actually Hitler was the leader of the German "National Socialist" Party and there's no debate about that historical fact at all. Hitler's brand of collectivism was and is correctly associated with totalitarianism, racism, ecology over humanity, brutality, and eugenics in particular and other more typical or mundane socialistic principles in general. This also cannot be denied! When any politician in any part of the world acts with those specifically stated traits then I reserve the right and fairly so I believe, to compare him or her with Hitler or the Nazi party. Especially in the USA where our founding principles are in abject disagreement with and legally (rule of law again!) forbids the legislation of, most socialistic notions and ideals - as the constitution and founding documents clearly intend.

Also I don't know too many people who have their wits about them who blame anything much on the personage of B. H. Obama. The Obama name is most often used to give a name to the current regime (group of men) in power in Washington - literally the entire executive branch of government. Obama as a person? Yeah, maybe just on the issue of the birth certificate or something like that. Otherwise, no.

[XNine]

They did.

http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_dansweeney/hitler-bush.jpg

http://conservativedigest.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bush_hitler2.jpg

http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/adolf-hitler-bush.jpg

http://www.black-and-right.com/wp-content/uploads/hitler_bush.jpg

Don't really have to continue..

Perfect. Thanks. :)

[Veldek]

Hitler was a kind of socialist. "Collectivist" is the better word to choose for these discussions tho. Actually Hitler was the leader of the German "National Socialist" Party and there's no debate about that historical fact at all. Eastern Germany was called German Democratic Republic, too, and I nevertheless have my doubts about the democratic part of it.
Hitler's brand of collectivism was and is correctly associated with totalitarianism, racism, ecology over humanity, brutality, and eugenics in particular and other more typical or mundane socialistic principles in general. This also cannot be denied! When any politician in any part of the world acts with those specifically stated traits then I reserve the right and fairly so I believe, to compare him or her with Hitler or the Nazi party. So you have the opinion that eugenics, racism and brutality are socialistic principles? And even if they were, I doubt that Obama's work has similarities to those traits.

[takao]

Socialism in a free constitutional republic such as ours seldom begins or ends without fascism - they pretty much go hand in hand. That's just the nature of things! Hitler was a kind of socialist. "Collectivist" is the better word to choose for these discussions tho. Actually Hitler was the leader of the German "National Socialist" Party and there's no debate about that historical fact at all.

hitler was leader of the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei"
_that_ is a historical fact


Hitler's brand of collectivism was and is correctly associated with totalitarianism, racism, ecology over humanity, brutality, and eugenics in particular and other more typical or mundane socialistic principles in general. This also cannot be denied! When any politician in any part of the world acts with those specifically stated traits then I reserve the right and fairly so I believe, to compare him or her with Hitler or the Nazi party.

calling Hitler a socialist is bizarre ... that's just like taking the "Demokratische" in DDR at face value

[Ugg]

All of which were also true at the end of WW2, except that unlike the Europeans/Japanese/Chinese you didn't have to rebuild all your infrastructure.

You're correct, however, the interstate highway system wasn't begun until after WWII was over. Also, our university system is largely a result of the GI bill, which allowed millions of veterans to study. I'm sure there are other examples as well.

I think more than infrastructure, it's a matter of relationships. The US added Hawaii and Alaska as states but our relationship with Canada and Mexico is more or less the same. Europe had to entirely rethink its relationship with itself and after 1989, with its eastern neighbors.

The US has never been very good at re-envisioning itself and that will be our downfall. Whereas Europe has done nothing but for the last 65 years. This article about Strassbourg (http://americancity.org/magazine/article/the-french-revolution/) and the way it has changed transit in the city is very revealing.

“We had meetings around the city and three things came up,” recalls Alain Jund, a member of Parliament who works on transportation policy. “One, there are too many cars in public places. Two, ‘I don’t have a place to park my car.’ And three, we need public transportation. There was a contradiction. As politicians we had to make choices.”

Here in the US, the only voice that would be heard is "Me, Me, Me...."

Individual European cities, regions and countries are better able to deal with future change than are myopic Americans.

Here in California, the local county planning board had to update its long term urban plan as required by law. Three options were given.
1. Increase density in existing building areas.
2. Encourage infill and open up some greenfield areas.
3. Do nothing and allow building to take place where it will.

The county chose #2 which means nothing much will change and developers will cry wolf and squeeze tax concessions from the county whenever they redevelop an urban property. And will do everything they can to turn productive farmland into a suburban wasteland.

In other words, the county gave the middle finger to the rest of the world. I don't think that's unusual for the US. Our continued sprawl will be our downfall because in the end, we simply don't play well with others.

[it5five]

It stands contrary to reason that the DSA would endorse someone who doesn't fall in line with their philosophy of a "gradual shift toward socialism."

You're still not getting it. They will endorse pretty much any Democratic candidate, since they believe any progressive change will come from the Democratic Party. Both Clinton and Obama, two people the DSA have endorsed, are center-right politicians. To get endorsed by the DSA you pretty much have to not be a Republican.

Since you seem rather incapable of spending a minute to go to their website and read about them, I'll post the relevant section here:

Democratic socialists reject an either-or approach to electoral coalition building, focused solely on anew party or on realignment within the Democratic Party. The growth of PAC-driven,candidate-based, entrepreneurial politics in the last 25 years leaves little hope for an immediate,principled electoral response to the rightward, pro-corporate drift in American politics. The fundamental task of democratic socialists is to build anti-corporate social movements capable of winning reforms that empower people. Since such social movements seek to influence state policy,they will intervene in electoral politics, whether through Democratic primaries, non-partisan local elections, or third party efforts. Our electoral work aims at building majoritarian coalitions capable of not only electing public officials on the anti-corporate program of these movements, but also of holding officials accountable after they are elected.

The U.S. electoral system makes third parties difficult to build at both the national and state level.Winner take-all districts; the absence of proportional representation; open primaries; executive-run governments that make coalition governments impossible; state legislative control over ballot access and election laws all combine to impede third parties. Much of progressive, independent political action will continue to occur in Democratic Party primaries in support of candidates who represent a broad progressive coalition. In such instances, democratic socialists will support coalitional campaigns based on labor, women, people of color and other potentially anti-corporate elements.

Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end. Where third party or non-partisan candidates mobilize such coalitions, democratic socialists will build such organizations and candidacies. However, to democratize U.S. electoral politics - whatever its party form -requires serious campaign finance reform both within and without the Democratic Party.

[yg17]

It's by this very rule of law and ONLY from this very rule of law that Obama's birth certificate should be an issue to anyone - for example. If the rules are that a person MUST be a natural born citizen to be the president of the USA and that citizenship comes under question (in the records and etc.) then he has to show his just as I would have to show mine - if he is to be an equal creature under the law. The second he doesn't he has refused this equality and a founding principle of this nation. So, yes, that's kind of a big deal! I have to show mine just to get a passport BTW.


Except he has shown his birth certificate. World Nut Daily, a right wing website verified its authenticity. It's not an issue, yet the wingnuts want to keep making it one.

[IntheNet]

Except he has shown his birth certificate.

Link to the press conference will you where he did the showing and answered the questions? I must have missed that....

[yg17]

Link to the press conference will you where he did the showing and answered the questions? I must have missed that....

There was no birth certificate press conference, it would be a waste of time. There are no questions.

Obama BC on his campaign site: http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

World Nut Daily article confirming it's authentic: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

I'm not sure what else you birthers want :rolleyes:

[IntheNet]

There was no birth certificate press conference, it would be a waste of time. There are no questions.

There are questions. Lots of them. Just one post ago you said this:

Except he has shown his birth certificate.

That's not true is it? You just confirmed that.

[yg17]

There are questions. Lots of them. Just one post ago you said this:

Oh really. What questions?


That's not true is it? You just confirmed that.

He put the BC up on his campaign website! I would consider that showing it to the world. He doesn't need to waste time with a presser to talk to a very small minority in this country who won't believe him anyways.

[leekohler]

Oh really. What questions?



He put the BC up on his campaign website! I would consider that showing it to the world. He doesn't need to waste time with a presser to talk to a very small minority in this country who won't believe him anyways.

Don't feed the troll.

[stubeeef]

I hope they run Palin next election.

You got that right, me too. I would vote for her everyday of the week and twice on Sunday compared to the nightmare we are now in. I don't think enough would disagree (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html#chart).

again (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/sarah-palin-barack-obama-poll-gap-narrows.html)

[leekohler]

You got that right, me too. I would vote for her everyday of the week and twice on Sunday compared to the nightmare we are now in. I don't think enough would disagree (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html#chart).

Umm- we woke up from the nightmare 10 months ago and are now trying to get back to reality. Is it going well? Nope. But it's still better than what we had. At least now we have a chance.

And please- run her. I beg you.

[stubeeef]

just added a link to my last post, check it out.

[Rt&Dzine]

The media whore, Palin, gave the presidency to Obama on a silver platter.

[stubeeef]

And please- run her. I beg you.

I kinda thought that way about D'Obama-didn't think he had a prayer. Heck he even said he wasn't qualified to run yet. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2encXLmPDo)
Never say never my friend.
just like economist never start or run successful businesses, looks like intellectual elites aren't very popular when the actual works differ from the lying mouths.

The media whore, Palin, gave the presidency to Obama on a silver platter.

Seems that what Palin giveth, Palin taketh away!;)

[Rt&Dzine]

Seems that what Palin giveth, Palin taketh away!;)

Oh, she's God! Good to know.

[Zombie Acorn]

Lets say hypothetically Obama was born in Kenya, do you really want Biden "the gaffe machine" as your president? I didn't think so.

If there was any legitimacy to the claim the Republicans would have investigated it during the campaign and exposed it.

[stubeeef]

Oh, she's God! Good to know.

Seems you think so, the post I quoted was you saying she gave D'Obama the office! Based on newly release poll data, seems she could rise up and smack the fellow down by 2012.
D'Obama and the dim-ocrats are handing everything over while they pat themselves on their backs. It is HI-larious.
BTW I more and more dislike the GOP, and love that Palin ran against the GOP machine in Alaska and won! She bashed Sen Stevens, sold the state Jet, and fired the Governors chef. Love her way.

[Zombie Acorn]

Seems you think so, the post I quoted was you saying she gave D'Obama the office! Based on newly release poll data, seems she could rise up and smack the fellow down by 2012.
D'Obama and the dim-ocrats are handing everything over while they pat themselves on their backs. It is HI-larious.
BTW I more and more dislike the GOP, and love that Palin ran against the GOP machine in Alaska and won! She bashed Sen Stevens, sold the state Jet, and fired the Governors chef. Love her way.

Palin will not rise and smack anyone down besides herself if she attempts to get up on stage during a real debate.

Stop prefacing your president's name with D' and other prefixes that you think are clever also, they aren't.

[Rt&Dzine]

Seems you think so, the post I quoted was you saying she gave D'Obama the office! Based on newly release poll data, seems she could rise up and smack the fellow down by 2012.
D'Obama and the dim-ocrats are handing everything over while they pat themselves on their backs. It is HI-larious.
BTW I more and more dislike the GOP, and love that Palin ran against the GOP machine in Alaska and won! She bashed Sen Stevens, sold the state Jet, and fired the Governors chef. Love her way.

As I said, she's your God. Worship away.

[leekohler]

Seems you think so, the post I quoted was you saying she gave D'Obama the office! Based on newly release poll data, seems she could rise up and smack the fellow down by 2012.
D'Obama and the dim-ocrats are handing everything over while they pat themselves on their backs. It is HI-larious.
BTW I more and more dislike the GOP, and love that Palin ran against the GOP machine in Alaska and won! She bashed Sen Stevens, sold the state Jet, and fired the Governors chef. Love her way.

She did hand it to Obama. And she'll hand it to someone else if she runs again. Please- run her. I couldn't be happier if you did.

Sad to see what's become of you, stu. You used to be a good debater. Now it's just talking points and BS name-calling. Oh well.

[Eraserhead]

Palin will not rise and smack anyone down besides herself if she attempts to get up on stage during a real debate.

Stop prefacing your president's name with D' and other prefixes that you think are clever also, they aren't.

Quoted for truth.

PS @ Ugg I'll respond to your post tomorrow :).

[bobber205]

There was no birth certificate press conference, it would be a waste of time. There are no questions.

Obama BC on his campaign site: http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

World Nut Daily article confirming it's authentic: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

I'm not sure what else you birthers want :rolleyes:

I just love how InTheNet ignored your post past this line.

[63dot]

The GOP is alive and well and will put a lot of money into local elections they narrowly lost in 2008. As much as I want the GOP to lose, they will either gain in the House, and maybe even the Senate.

For 2012, Palin still looks like a joke at 14% percent, and Huckabee will never be forgiven for the Seattle area shooter.

But that does not take away from Romney approaching 30% percent (who now won't not have Huckabee to worry about) and Jindal (who the GOP can see as their "Obama"). Jindal is not in the serious political polls and he seems to swear he won't run and has his work cut out for him in his neck of the woods, but he can use this time to become very visible nationally.

Obama did the same if we all remember.

On the outside, even with Romney with a huge lead in Rasmussen, 538, Gallup, and Fox, the GOP's beloved Newt is always a possibility. Like him or not, Newt has a strong track record for rallying the troops. While he didn't become President in the 1990s, he certainly acted like it. As much as his huge ego should have taken away from him, it only endeared conservatives and moderates to his striving.

While I think 2012 will go Democratic for the White House, I don't see the next President's race as a walk in the park against a totally demolished Republican party. At no point has the GOP been without a compass or a plan.

[Desertrat]

Peterkro: Soon after the passage of LBJ's "Great society" legislation, there was an article in Reader's Digest about an interview with Norman Thomas. That's where I first ran across the "no need to run" statement. 1966? It's just one of those snippets from decades ago. "The years all run together, now..." as Ian Tyson wrote.

[Peterkro]

Peterkro: Soon after the passage of LBJ's "Great society" legislation, there was an article in Reader's Digest about an interview with Norman Thomas. That's where I first ran across the "no need to run" statement. 1966? It's just one of those snippets from decades ago. "The years all run together, now..." as Ian Tyson wrote.

Thanks for having the decency to reply.There are two supposed quotes from Thomas,sometimes conflated sometimes separate,aside from Reagan's use of it in 1961 and even his biographer admitted he often made quotes up there is no record of either quote.Not in the Thomas archive (which is comprehensive) nor in any newspaper archive or any other source.The quotes have various dates ascribed to them,anything from 1927 to 1970 (two years after Thomas died). Readers Digest"s reputation speaks for itself.

[thegoldenmackid]

Tesselator, while it's clear that you are very intelligent, I mean the following in the least of offensive ways as possible. I'm one of those people who will mockingly put the tin foil hat on because I, like most of the people in the country, (good or bad) believe that your theories, while shedding some moments of truth - aren't in fact very true.

Rather then having a discussion of who shot Kennedy, what's at Area 51 or the clandestine whatever the... I'd rather focus on the issues that you yourself inevitably know are going to matter in the upcoming elections, assuming we don't all die in four days.

It seems clear that given the huge distance between us, the idea of one of us not thinking the other one is missing something is out of the question.

With that being said, thanks InTheNet for proving my point.

63dot, I'm fairly certain that we could have thrown nearly anyone (minus Hilary or Al Gore) up there in the face of the Bush administration and Palin and the walk in the park would have been achieved.

stubeeef, what qualifications does Palin have to do anything? Being Mayor of a small town that didn't have basic services like a fire department? Leaving your post as governor early for a book deal after you faced serious corruption charges? I hope the circus comes back for 2012, I really do.

[Desertrat]

"Readers Digest"s reputation speaks for itself."

I have no clue about RD in today's world. I know that from around 1940 on into the 1960s, it was an excellent source of condensed articles on multitudes of subjects. But, times change and folks die off and then various editorial policies change. I haven't really read through an RD in maybe thirty years...

Drifting a bit: Many a noted author could certainly have benefitted from having his writings condensed by the RD "re-writers". :D

"The Fountainhead" as a hundred-page book? :D:D:D

[Gelfin]

"The Fountainhead" as a hundred-page book? :D:D:D

Oh, I'm sure we can do better than that.

ROARK: 'Lo all. I am, by contrivance of the story, innately better than everybody at architecture. But we'll get back to that in a moment. First I need to prove what a misguided realization of the übermensch I am by acting out Ayn Rand's rape fantasies on Dominique Francon.

FRANCON: Golly, thanks! Rape only sucks when it isn't committed by a real man.

KEATING: Aw. Oh well, at least I'm a mediocre loser, so I've got no business complaining.

TOOHEY: MUAHAHA! STRAWMAN SOCIALISM! CRUSH TALENT! KILL COMPETENCE! MAKE EVERYTHING SUCK ALL THE TIME! I'M TWISTED AND EVIL BEYOND ANY SEMBLANCE OF REALITY FOR NO REASON AT ALL! Hey, Stoddard. Hire this kid so I can ****** him up.

STODDARD: Um. 'Kay. How about a public installation art project? I'm not going to ask for any drawings or input or anything. Just, you know, go do it.

ROARK: Awesome. I'll make a statue of that chick I raped some ungodly number of pages back.

FRANCON: That really turns me on. More rape later?

TOOHEY: My GOD, a man making a statue of a naked woman? It's so ORIGINAL. This cannot be tolerated! Sue him, Stoddard! Meanwhile I'll spin up the idiot echo machine I direct via the press (okay, Rand can't get it all wrong. -G).

EVERY OTHER ARCHITECT: Secretly Roark's raw talent shames us, but we can't admit that. Therefore we condemn him in court. There's nothing we tolerate less in public installation art projects than unorthodoxy! Hang him!

FRANCON: Wow, that sucks. No rape tonight, I guess. Tell you what, I think this proves the world sucks, so I'm going to go off and marry that loser Keating, further entrenching every creepy obsessive stalker type's delusions, since my next relationship after Roark is in fact a loveless act of self-abuse undertaken in reaction to my inexplicably conflicted feelings about Roark himself, whom I should clearly love unconditionally.

ROARK: Okay. I'll go toil in obscurity, but continue to kick all manner of ass at it.

WYNAND: Say, I'd like a building. Probably designed by an architect who is good.

FRANCON: Well, my husband isn't. In fact he sucks. But in keeping with my newly contrived world view, which isn't actually all that different from my old world view in some deeply disturbing ways, how about a little "Indecent Proposal?"

WYNAND: You're on! In fact, I'll do you one better: divorce the loser and marry me.

FRANCON: Sure, might as well.

WYNAND: Now we need a house. Let's find every awesome building in the city and find who designed them... Say, it turns out every building in town that doesn't suck was designed by some obscure guy who was publicly shamed in my paper some time back for doing a naked statue of you as installation art. I wonder if he's a good choice?

FRANCON: Um, who again?

ROARK: Sure, I'll do it!

WYNAND: Wow, it's like this whole building was designed around my wife, embodying some deeper understanding of her.

ROARK: 'Bout an inch and a half deeper, the way I hear it.

WYNAND: Pardon?

ROARK: Nothing. Uh, yeah. Funny, that.

KEATING: Oh, god, I suck so much, but I really want to design a housing project. Toohey, help!

TOOHEY: Strange-Definition-of-Socialist Powers Activate! You got it, kid.

KEATING: Yay! But because I suck so deeply and completely, I know in my heart only Roark could do this work. Maybe he'll do my homework for me one more time.

ROARK: Okay, here's the most brilliant blueprint anyone has ever designed. Just don't tell anybody I did it and don't ****** it up. Now I'm going to go on vacation.

KEATING: Yyyyyeah, I guess it's a pretty good blueprint, but despite knowing how much I suck and how much better than me Roark is, I think it could use some crapping up here and there, and nobody's supervising this project at all, so I can safely turn it into something that's way too expensive to be a housing project.

ROARK: I'm back! How's the buil… what the c***-shredding ****** did you do to my building?

KEATING: Like it?

ROARK: Allow me to answer that in the only rational way, with dynamite.

TOOHEY: Now I have him! I'll stack the newspaper with my minions to sway public opinion, because public opinion about blowing up buildings needs a great deal of swaying.

WYNAND: I dunno, this is the kind of disregard for the basic rule of law I can really stand behind.

TOOHEY: GO ON STRIKE, MY MINIONS!

MINIONS: STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!

WYNAND: What are labor's demands? Pay? Health care? Retirement?

MINIONS: Condemn Roark! 'Cause Master Toohey said so!

WYNAND: Sigh. Okay.

ROARK: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, yes I blew up a building, but let's not lose sight of the important thing: I rock and everybody else sucks. The defense rests.

THE JURY: We're convinced. Not guilty.

WYNAND: Go Roark! Now build me a skyscraper. Also, I guess have my wife.

FRANCON: Rape! Yay! Now pose like Superman on top of the skyscraper.

ROARK: Done and done. Capitalism rocks.

[Ugg]

That's brilliant Gelfin! You made my day.

[Peterkro]

"Readers Digest"s reputation speaks for itself."

I have no clue about RD in today's world. I know that from around 1940 on into the 1960s, it was an excellent source of condensed articles on multitudes of subjects. But, times change and folks die off and then various editorial policies change. I haven't really read through an RD in maybe thirty years...

Drifting a bit: Many a noted author could certainly have benefitted from having his writings condensed by the RD "re-writers". :D

"The Fountainhead" as a hundred-page book? :D:D:D

I guess your perception is different from mine, I used to read it as a kid in the fifties and it's red under the bed scaremongering was obvious to me even at that age.



Very good Gelfin.:D