Posted on 09/17/2008 3:56:37 PM PDT by wagglebee
I can only imagine the hatred that the Obamanists show toward Trig in private.
Well. So much for the greatly exaggerated supposed belief of Libertarians that people should mind their own dern business. Guess they were just pulling our legs.
I wonder if he thinks people should be eutanized if they become disabled.
You know, that was one of my first thoughts as well. I was reminded of Chambers' suggestion that Rand's only true philosophical debt was to Nietzsche, not Aristotle. Provenzo certainly seems to show that.
Here’s a link to a takeoff on Sara & the Starfish. Shows how Sarah feels about a single life and how the libs don’t get it.
In a free society nobody would be forced to pay for someone else’s problems . This guy may call himself a libertarian but murder for the so called benefit of others is collectivist to the core.
I have never had the pleasure of coming face to face with anyone that thinks like this.But i have the Bail money saved just in case that day does arrive.
Hmm, maybe Whittaker Chambers’ review of Atlas Shrugged was right after all
Having read all of Rand's major works, I find it pathetic that adults buy into Rand's Objectivism hook, line and sinker. Swallowing the whole canard.
Objectivism has many philosophical points that are attractive to the hard working ambitious individual, myself included, but ultimately leaves you with a dead soul devoid of faith, hope or love of your fellow man which in the end is the reason we live and breath everyday.
So it is no surprise this author takes this horrid position and tags it with a capitalist tag to give it legitimacy
“Why is it that so much of our politics these days are influenced by gays? It seems at the political level that they are merely confirming the stereotype of gays as hyperventilating dramatists.
I think the country would be better off if we spent the amount of time appropriate in our national discourse for 3% of the population.
And, seriously, if George W. Bush was for gay “marriage” then the Iraq War would never have been as it was by the media.”
Excellent points. I stopped going to Episcopal conventions because of having to listen to that 1-3 % of the population pushing the gay agenda and whining about how evil and mean the rest of us were.
You are correct, GW would have confused the Dinosaur fishwraps and ABCNNBCBS if he had said he was for Gay marriage and was trying to kill al al Qaeda terrorists, becaused they were anti Gay Marriage.
Not he libertarian party I understand, but the reason I left that party is because they claim to be “pro-choice on everything” A lot of lefty turds hide under the guise of being a libertarian.
Yep, a bunch of libertarians I've known are leftists bordering on anarchists who happen to hate taxes and like guns.
Front organization for...??
Probably Ron Paul.
Yeah, the Episcopal Church that a part of my family has been members of for centuries is circling the drain, due in no small part to that segment of the population and their mushy-headed sympathizers.
You can add the feminists to that group of mentally challenged subhumans.
“Provenzo can kiss my differently enabled ass.”
Jim, I wonder what this brown shirt filled with hate feels about:
1. People who need wheelchairs, crutches, canes or walkers to do the things we need to do in life.
2. People with hearing difficulties, people with strokes which leave them partially paralyzed or unable to talk.
3. Or anyone, who doesn’t meet his minimal brownshirt standards.
As a pro-life libertarian, I understand. The state does have a role when the rights of an individual are at risk. Naturally the obvious observation that an individual begins life at conception requires too much thought for some.
“Yeah, the Episcopal Church that a part of my family has been members of for centuries is circling the drain, due in no small part to that segment of the population and their mushy-headed sympathizers.”
Yep, another sad example of what 1-3% of the population can do to a long time organization.
Provenzo is one sick puppy.
Wrong. The Center's site explicitly says:
The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism is dedicated to advancing individual rights and economic freedom through Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
The author of this article is intentionally trying to insult the Center or doesn't have a clue what an Objectivist is.
Provenzo goes on to condemn National Review
There's been a war between Ayn Rand and National Review for about half a century.
In a rebuke that smacks of selfishness at its worse
Again: is the author trying to insult the center (and, by extension, all Objectivists) or merely operating from ignorance?
"Selfishness", in a nutshell, means "rational self-interest" to an Objectivist. It's a good thing to an Objectivist.
ACTION:
Pointless. It would be like a Wiccan screaming in a Catholic church.
The Right and Objectivists have worked together, when their interests were aligned, for decades. Dredging up a fundamental philosophical disagreement between the two, at this time, is insane or naive. And unproductive.
Oy vey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.