on PolicyMic
Jeremiah Harding Not absolutely at all. I took extra care to specify that I was "Not making comparisons, but..." I mean, you can choose not to trust me (it's understandable), but the only thing I was bringing up was the psychological reasoning behind sympathy for the dead, and the potential motivation behind honoring their memory with a decidedly revisionist view of their life's accomplishments. I am not attacking you, and I am not even attacking Lincoln. The fact that his record is morally indefensible does a better job of throwing dirt on his name than I could dream to. If I seem acerbic, it is only because I have grown extremely tired of the flattering and unassuming caricature drawn into my mind from an early age, now rightly shattered by the facts.
Jeremiah Harding Not making comparisons, but: Hitler Mussolini Gaddafi Genghis Khan Bin Laden Any of these bring wistfulness to the table for you? They all deserved to die, so the only ones who weep for them are the ones who sympathize. Do you sympathize with Lincoln?
Jeremiah Harding It is a good picture. Problem is that it's doctored. Ron Paul's "Liberty Defined" had a few things to say about it in a chapter on demagoguery.
Jeremiah Harding It is out of line. However, rad my above comments for why I don't shed a tear thinking of him being shot.
Jeremiah Harding Not to be too sardonic, and no disrespect intended, but both the North and the South deserved to be fought. Lincoln was the worst kind of tyrant possible -- one that could trick the People into believing that he was on their side while slowly and surely stripping them of their sovereign Liberty. We should have no sympathy for the cause of Lincoln. Certainly not a day celebrating the glossed over, fictional, sugar coated, demagogue of a tyrant...
Jeremiah Harding HAHAHAHAHA... http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
Jeremiah Harding Plus, I think you mistake his ideas. It's not "no Government" -- it's "less Government". If he believed in no government, he wouldn't run for office. Running for anything tacitly means that you believe in the utility of the position, even if that belief is limited to the scope of you holding it. If he didn't believe in some government, he wouldn't have worked there -- not exactly an entry level job -- and he would've signed no bills, at all, ever (since every new law, regulation, code, and order means more government and less government backed freedom). To the point: he is not an Anarchist, but a Minarchist. Spell check doesn't know that one yet... heh. I know how he sounds, but actions speak louder than that -- and his actions are loud...
Jeremiah Harding I also want to be clear -- I'm sort of off the Ron Paul bus, given a lot that has happened since the end of election season.
Jeremiah Harding I apologize for same -- been busy, and haven't even touched this site for a long while... even missed two articles I was supposed to write (you know who you are: if you're reading, I apologize)... Anyway, I don't agree with your sentiment that gov't can protect us from economic wolves. The fact that, for years, the gov't was in bed with these people, making policy nice and biased to their "success", and then giving them huge amounts of money to help them unscrew themselves (which the American people will have to repay in the form of interest based inflation) means that government is not only not the fix, but it is the problem. Short-term "fixes" inflict long-term wounds on the economy. Wounds not felt until the Admin hasn't to worry.
Jeremiah Harding He's retiring from Congress, and nothing else. He still plans to run for President. The phrasing of this article belies the actual truth, which is that he's not "retiring". He's simply moving on to a better way of running for office. Plus, it helps that he is no longer running for two offices at once, which means less scrutiny. Now, he won't be criticized for that. It means he's MORE serious about the Presidency, not less. My only thing is, I would refrain from simply leaving it at "Ron Paul is retiring". Makes your point less ill-perceivable.
Jeremiah Harding "Once, when Barbara Branden was asked by a student: 'What will happen to the poor in an Objectivist society?'—she answered: 'If you want to help them, you will not be stopped.' This is the essence of the whole issue and a perfect example of how one refuses to accept an adversary’s premises as the basis of discussion. Only individual men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others; society—as an organized political system—has no rights in the matter at all." -- Ayn Rand -- The Virtue of Selfishness -- 1962/4 So, no. Your premise that healthcare has never come under attack until now is fallacious, and biased toward left-minded thinkers. You either didn't know, or refused to accept, that there were those who disagreed.
Jeremiah Harding "For instance, Objectivists will often hear a question such as: 'What will be done about the poor or the handicapped in a free society?' The altruist-collectivist premise, implicit in that question, is that men are 'their brothers’ keepers' and that the misfortune of some is a mortgage on others. The questioner is ignoring or evading the basic premises of Objectivist ethics and is attempting to switch the discussion onto his own collectivist base. Observe that he does not ask: 'Should anything be done?' but: 'What will be done?'—as if the collectivist premise had been tacitly accepted and all that remains is a discussion of the means to implement it." -- Ayn Rand -- The Virtue of Selfishness -- 1962/4
Jeremiah Harding But was it a factor here? Respond with evidence, and I will talk about that. Remember, INDIVIDUAL achievement is what matters not sexual ones. I think the only reason Feminism is brought up here at all is because she's a woman (which seems sexist to me), as evidenced by what Douglas said... "She was hired by Google in 1999. So in 13 years she has gone from engineer to CEO. That is done by doing her best and being the best qualified for the job. She got herself on the fast track. That would not have happened if there was discrimination holding her back. Headline only needs to say 'Marissa Mayer New YAHOO CEO' Who cares if she's pregnant? So are many other business women." Just food for thought... In Liberty, Jeremy Harding
Jeremiah Harding Main point is, this is not an issue of Feminism, because Feminism is about equal rights, and the fact that she is where she is is evidence of the fact that she had the right to do so. Most women just don't try. To be fair, most men don't try either, but more of them have than their female counterparts. This is, rather, an issue of womens' organisation, and should be a rallying cry to other women to use the rights that they indeed do have. In Liberty, Jeremy Harding
Jeremiah Harding Cannot agree. Feminism is about a struggle for the recognition of womens' humanity, and for societal treatment to reflect that. While women are brutalized and veiled in middle eastern countries, and bodily controlled in China, and nobody fights it, Feminism has no face. Feminism is gone. Replaced with social Justice activists who would sooner whine about straight white male privilege than fight for a woman's right to lead her husband. Or uncover her face, or even ankle (Shiite Islamic Culture). Or have AS MANY babies as they want (China). Or to have a variety of other abuses addressed. Until this is the focus, feminism has forgot its purpose, and will always focus on asinine stuff like this.
Jeremiah Harding Apologies for the doubling. Don't exactly know how that happened.
Jeremiah Harding So no. Health care cannot inflate. You're right about that Steve. Talking about health care, and it's effects on inflation, is ridiculous. It's like saying "by all means, treat the symptom and not the cause". What we need to talk about is the Trojan horse that is the FED, it's masking of the true national inflation rates here in the U.S., and how, if they were ever audited, the facade would have to drop, and it would unleash economic hell on all of Earth (as the worldwide economy hinges on ours) for all things, not just health care (even though some inflation is already seeping through the cracks Bernanke can't anymore plug). What we need to talk about is the massive spend, borrow, and tax strategy Liberals love to turn to, like UHC.
Jeremiah Harding Of course it isn't. Items can't inflate, only currency can. However, the inflation of currency causes the price of everything to go up. Which is what is happening. Also, the FED combating inflation is nothing but a liberal pipe dream. Federal notes are backed by nothing, which means that the more you print, the less all consumer items are worth (including health care), and this is because the money is backed by even less of nothing. Because the money is backed by nothing, it can only be backed by government force. This means that the FED simply creates regulations for worth instead of providing factual backing for it. So, in effect, the real rates of inflation are nonexistent because the government says so.
Jeremiah Harding I mean, Christ, man, you're a Liberal! Aren't you anti-war? Don't you have solid arguments for that? If so, why hasn't your Obama helped you out? I'm sure that it would be a logical enough argument to say, "I don't want my tax dollars going to the mass killing of people I don't know for an Imperialist agent fraught with the greed for petroleum products", so why hasn't he listened? Enough people are screaming out that it would be impossible for him not to hear them all! I tag him regularly on Facebook, and am unrelenting in those posts about how much I loathe his foreign policy! Where's my audience? Where are the audiences of all of the other "Paulbots"? I would bet that more people in DHS and NSA listen to us than those on Pennsylvania Ave!
Jeremiah Harding Oh, bullsh*t. If that "chain of command" of yours was actually a valid form of societal change if utilized by the military men under it, then Ron Paul (who has more support from active members of the military than all other candidates combined, including your much lauded Barack Obama) wouldn't even need to become POTUS to get us out of our combat zones, as the bulk of the troops ALREADY WANT OUT! The problem is that the powers that be -- wait, the power that is (Obama) -- don't want to do what the people want them to do. They LIKE their imperialism, because it furthers the diabolical regime of the fiat petrodollar. Without oil from foreign wars, we might actually have to change things. This is why he was at a Ron Paul rally.
Jeremiah Harding And you want to talk about Congress? Why don't you add "impotent" to that descriptor, as well? Clearly it doesn't require their approval, anymore, to bomb and invade a country, kill Americans, or strip American rights (see NDAA). And is his presidency even close to "impeccable"? Really? You can't name ANY mistakes? Because any historian worth his/her salt will be able to chronicle that every single campaign promise he has made, with a few disastrous exceptions (Obamacare, to name one), have been broken. If being a complete liar and fraud is impeccable, sure, but his switch from peace-loving, rights-advocating Democrat to overbearing warmonger-moderate bent on denying rights angers even the most loyal constituent (whose eyes are open)!
Jeremiah Harding Racial inequality is a social issue as well. Also, hardly anyone in America is killed or tortured for their race or sexuality anymore, and, even when it was more prevalent, our foreign policy killed more by many hundredfold. I think that that is much more important to address (you know, killing people) than education, LGBT rights, racial inequality, campaign finance reform, or "alternative" energy. None of these things matter, and all of them are "wishy-washy" when the energy used to tackle those issues could be used to root out the political corruption that costs lives. People are dying -- being forced to have all their rights removed. Permanently. This has to stop before your issues will matter, because comparatively... they don't.
Jeremiah Harding None of this. If the President wants to address real issues, he should address an audit of the FED, his foreign policy [which had, and continues to cost tens of thousands of lives, an American's rights (Anwar, anyone?), and billions in debt], domestic oil, the NDAA, and ending the rich's tax cuts. He won't, however, do any of this, as he would then have to address how much of a problem his Presidency has been for the American people, and that wouldn't look good for his potential second term. Nope. He'll just keep grinning as he screws the country over. And maybe he will address these issues in your article, but that would only be pandering, and evading issues that cost lives, and civil liberties. Obama is a coward liar. Plain and simple.
Jeremiah Harding Hey, also, while you're here, there's a spelling error in your anonymous user FAQ ( http://www.policymic.com/profiles/3246/anonymous-user ). If you're interested, look for a "you're".
on PolicyMic
Jeremiah Harding Not absolutely at all. I took extra care to specify that I was "Not making comparisons, but..." I mean, you can choose not to trust me (it's understandable), but the only thing I was bringing up was the psychological reasoning behind sympathy for the dead, and the potential motivation behind honoring their memory with a decidedly revisionist view of their life's accomplishments. I am not attacking you, and I am not even attacking Lincoln. The fact that his record is morally indefensible does a better job of throwing dirt on his name than I could dream to. If I seem acerbic, it is only because I have grown extremely tired of the flattering and unassuming caricature drawn into my mind from an early age, now rightly shattered by the facts.
Jeremiah Harding Not making comparisons, but: Hitler Mussolini Gaddafi Genghis Khan Bin Laden Any of these bring wistfulness to the table for you? They all deserved to die, so the only ones who weep for them are the ones who sympathize. Do you sympathize with Lincoln?
Jeremiah Harding It is a good picture. Problem is that it's doctored. Ron Paul's "Liberty Defined" had a few things to say about it in a chapter on demagoguery.
Jeremiah Harding It is out of line. However, rad my above comments for why I don't shed a tear thinking of him being shot.
Jeremiah Harding Not to be too sardonic, and no disrespect intended, but both the North and the South deserved to be fought. Lincoln was the worst kind of tyrant possible -- one that could trick the People into believing that he was on their side while slowly and surely stripping them of their sovereign Liberty. We should have no sympathy for the cause of Lincoln. Certainly not a day celebrating the glossed over, fictional, sugar coated, demagogue of a tyrant...
Jeremiah Harding HAHAHAHAHA... http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
Jeremiah Harding Plus, I think you mistake his ideas. It's not "no Government" -- it's "less Government". If he believed in no government, he wouldn't run for office. Running for anything tacitly means that you believe in the utility of the position, even if that belief is limited to the scope of you holding it. If he didn't believe in some government, he wouldn't have worked there -- not exactly an entry level job -- and he would've signed no bills, at all, ever (since every new law, regulation, code, and order means more government and less government backed freedom). To the point: he is not an Anarchist, but a Minarchist. Spell check doesn't know that one yet... heh. I know how he sounds, but actions speak louder than that -- and his actions are loud...
Jeremiah Harding I also want to be clear -- I'm sort of off the Ron Paul bus, given a lot that has happened since the end of election season.
Jeremiah Harding I apologize for same -- been busy, and haven't even touched this site for a long while... even missed two articles I was supposed to write (you know who you are: if you're reading, I apologize)... Anyway, I don't agree with your sentiment that gov't can protect us from economic wolves. The fact that, for years, the gov't was in bed with these people, making policy nice and biased to their "success", and then giving them huge amounts of money to help them unscrew themselves (which the American people will have to repay in the form of interest based inflation) means that government is not only not the fix, but it is the problem. Short-term "fixes" inflict long-term wounds on the economy. Wounds not felt until the Admin hasn't to worry.
Jeremiah Harding He's retiring from Congress, and nothing else. He still plans to run for President. The phrasing of this article belies the actual truth, which is that he's not "retiring". He's simply moving on to a better way of running for office. Plus, it helps that he is no longer running for two offices at once, which means less scrutiny. Now, he won't be criticized for that. It means he's MORE serious about the Presidency, not less. My only thing is, I would refrain from simply leaving it at "Ron Paul is retiring". Makes your point less ill-perceivable.
Jeremiah Harding "Once, when Barbara Branden was asked by a student: 'What will happen to the poor in an Objectivist society?'—she answered: 'If you want to help them, you will not be stopped.' This is the essence of the whole issue and a perfect example of how one refuses to accept an adversary’s premises as the basis of discussion. Only individual men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others; society—as an organized political system—has no rights in the matter at all." -- Ayn Rand -- The Virtue of Selfishness -- 1962/4 So, no. Your premise that healthcare has never come under attack until now is fallacious, and biased toward left-minded thinkers. You either didn't know, or refused to accept, that there were those who disagreed.
Jeremiah Harding "For instance, Objectivists will often hear a question such as: 'What will be done about the poor or the handicapped in a free society?' The altruist-collectivist premise, implicit in that question, is that men are 'their brothers’ keepers' and that the misfortune of some is a mortgage on others. The questioner is ignoring or evading the basic premises of Objectivist ethics and is attempting to switch the discussion onto his own collectivist base. Observe that he does not ask: 'Should anything be done?' but: 'What will be done?'—as if the collectivist premise had been tacitly accepted and all that remains is a discussion of the means to implement it." -- Ayn Rand -- The Virtue of Selfishness -- 1962/4
Jeremiah Harding But was it a factor here? Respond with evidence, and I will talk about that. Remember, INDIVIDUAL achievement is what matters not sexual ones. I think the only reason Feminism is brought up here at all is because she's a woman (which seems sexist to me), as evidenced by what Douglas said... "She was hired by Google in 1999. So in 13 years she has gone from engineer to CEO. That is done by doing her best and being the best qualified for the job. She got herself on the fast track. That would not have happened if there was discrimination holding her back. Headline only needs to say 'Marissa Mayer New YAHOO CEO' Who cares if she's pregnant? So are many other business women." Just food for thought... In Liberty, Jeremy Harding
Jeremiah Harding Main point is, this is not an issue of Feminism, because Feminism is about equal rights, and the fact that she is where she is is evidence of the fact that she had the right to do so. Most women just don't try. To be fair, most men don't try either, but more of them have than their female counterparts. This is, rather, an issue of womens' organisation, and should be a rallying cry to other women to use the rights that they indeed do have. In Liberty, Jeremy Harding
Jeremiah Harding Cannot agree. Feminism is about a struggle for the recognition of womens' humanity, and for societal treatment to reflect that. While women are brutalized and veiled in middle eastern countries, and bodily controlled in China, and nobody fights it, Feminism has no face. Feminism is gone. Replaced with social Justice activists who would sooner whine about straight white male privilege than fight for a woman's right to lead her husband. Or uncover her face, or even ankle (Shiite Islamic Culture). Or have AS MANY babies as they want (China). Or to have a variety of other abuses addressed. Until this is the focus, feminism has forgot its purpose, and will always focus on asinine stuff like this.
Jeremiah Harding Apologies for the doubling. Don't exactly know how that happened.
Jeremiah Harding So no. Health care cannot inflate. You're right about that Steve. Talking about health care, and it's effects on inflation, is ridiculous. It's like saying "by all means, treat the symptom and not the cause". What we need to talk about is the Trojan horse that is the FED, it's masking of the true national inflation rates here in the U.S., and how, if they were ever audited, the facade would have to drop, and it would unleash economic hell on all of Earth (as the worldwide economy hinges on ours) for all things, not just health care (even though some inflation is already seeping through the cracks Bernanke can't anymore plug). What we need to talk about is the massive spend, borrow, and tax strategy Liberals love to turn to, like UHC.
Jeremiah Harding Of course it isn't. Items can't inflate, only currency can. However, the inflation of currency causes the price of everything to go up. Which is what is happening. Also, the FED combating inflation is nothing but a liberal pipe dream. Federal notes are backed by nothing, which means that the more you print, the less all consumer items are worth (including health care), and this is because the money is backed by even less of nothing. Because the money is backed by nothing, it can only be backed by government force. This means that the FED simply creates regulations for worth instead of providing factual backing for it. So, in effect, the real rates of inflation are nonexistent because the government says so.
Jeremiah Harding Of course it isn't. Items can't inflate, only currency can. However, the inflation of currency causes the price of everything to go up. Which is what is happening. Also, the FED combating inflation is nothing but a liberal pipe dream. Federal notes are backed by nothing, which means that the more you print, the less all consumer items are worth (including health care), and this is because the money is backed by even less of nothing. Because the money is backed by nothing, it can only be backed by government force. This means that the FED simply creates regulations for worth instead of providing factual backing for it. So, in effect, the real rates of inflation are nonexistent because the government says so.
Jeremiah Harding I mean, Christ, man, you're a Liberal! Aren't you anti-war? Don't you have solid arguments for that? If so, why hasn't your Obama helped you out? I'm sure that it would be a logical enough argument to say, "I don't want my tax dollars going to the mass killing of people I don't know for an Imperialist agent fraught with the greed for petroleum products", so why hasn't he listened? Enough people are screaming out that it would be impossible for him not to hear them all! I tag him regularly on Facebook, and am unrelenting in those posts about how much I loathe his foreign policy! Where's my audience? Where are the audiences of all of the other "Paulbots"? I would bet that more people in DHS and NSA listen to us than those on Pennsylvania Ave!
Jeremiah Harding Oh, bullsh*t. If that "chain of command" of yours was actually a valid form of societal change if utilized by the military men under it, then Ron Paul (who has more support from active members of the military than all other candidates combined, including your much lauded Barack Obama) wouldn't even need to become POTUS to get us out of our combat zones, as the bulk of the troops ALREADY WANT OUT! The problem is that the powers that be -- wait, the power that is (Obama) -- don't want to do what the people want them to do. They LIKE their imperialism, because it furthers the diabolical regime of the fiat petrodollar. Without oil from foreign wars, we might actually have to change things. This is why he was at a Ron Paul rally.
Jeremiah Harding And you want to talk about Congress? Why don't you add "impotent" to that descriptor, as well? Clearly it doesn't require their approval, anymore, to bomb and invade a country, kill Americans, or strip American rights (see NDAA). And is his presidency even close to "impeccable"? Really? You can't name ANY mistakes? Because any historian worth his/her salt will be able to chronicle that every single campaign promise he has made, with a few disastrous exceptions (Obamacare, to name one), have been broken. If being a complete liar and fraud is impeccable, sure, but his switch from peace-loving, rights-advocating Democrat to overbearing warmonger-moderate bent on denying rights angers even the most loyal constituent (whose eyes are open)!
Jeremiah Harding Racial inequality is a social issue as well. Also, hardly anyone in America is killed or tortured for their race or sexuality anymore, and, even when it was more prevalent, our foreign policy killed more by many hundredfold. I think that that is much more important to address (you know, killing people) than education, LGBT rights, racial inequality, campaign finance reform, or "alternative" energy. None of these things matter, and all of them are "wishy-washy" when the energy used to tackle those issues could be used to root out the political corruption that costs lives. People are dying -- being forced to have all their rights removed. Permanently. This has to stop before your issues will matter, because comparatively... they don't.
Jeremiah Harding None of this. If the President wants to address real issues, he should address an audit of the FED, his foreign policy [which had, and continues to cost tens of thousands of lives, an American's rights (Anwar, anyone?), and billions in debt], domestic oil, the NDAA, and ending the rich's tax cuts. He won't, however, do any of this, as he would then have to address how much of a problem his Presidency has been for the American people, and that wouldn't look good for his potential second term. Nope. He'll just keep grinning as he screws the country over. And maybe he will address these issues in your article, but that would only be pandering, and evading issues that cost lives, and civil liberties. Obama is a coward liar. Plain and simple.
Jeremiah Harding Hey, also, while you're here, there's a spelling error in your anonymous user FAQ ( http://www.policymic.com/profiles/3246/anonymous-user ). If you're interested, look for a "you're".