13-01-2015, 03:51 PM
Funny thing about Rand, when he talks about the things that have gone wrong, he makes perfect sense. But when he talks about fixing the problems, his ideas scare me. He is an elitist, probably a racist, and at minimum a "social Darwinist" of the highest order.
He sees the problem of injustice in our country as "lawless police vs. lawless welfare recipients." He sees poverty and a lack of education, not as problems to be fixed, but a symptom of excessive government (never mind that poverty and a lack of education existed long before FDR). His ideas seem to be to be totally devoid of the human compassion and tolerance which, fortunately, seem to be abundant in the younger generations. "Trouble" is after all, only "Opportunity in work clothes." We should take advantage of these opportunities to make people's lives better.
It seems to me that Paul, by framing the debate as "the 1%" against "cradle to grave welfare recipients" is attempting to pit both ends against each other. Although he decries revolution as one dictator replacing another, that seems to be what he is suggesting: replace the current government with one of his choosing. I have no doubt that his policies would lead to more domestic unrest as people begin to go hungry; and abroad, a return to "Fortress America" would only exacerbate the growing influence of both trans-national corporations and trans-national terrorist organizations.
Paul says that "enlightenemt" is, basically, the same thing as "getting a job." I say that enlightenment means realizing that people need more than a paycheck. Paul smells "progress." I smell "BS."
He sees the problem of injustice in our country as "lawless police vs. lawless welfare recipients." He sees poverty and a lack of education, not as problems to be fixed, but a symptom of excessive government (never mind that poverty and a lack of education existed long before FDR). His ideas seem to be to be totally devoid of the human compassion and tolerance which, fortunately, seem to be abundant in the younger generations. "Trouble" is after all, only "Opportunity in work clothes." We should take advantage of these opportunities to make people's lives better.
It seems to me that Paul, by framing the debate as "the 1%" against "cradle to grave welfare recipients" is attempting to pit both ends against each other. Although he decries revolution as one dictator replacing another, that seems to be what he is suggesting: replace the current government with one of his choosing. I have no doubt that his policies would lead to more domestic unrest as people begin to go hungry; and abroad, a return to "Fortress America" would only exacerbate the growing influence of both trans-national corporations and trans-national terrorist organizations.
Paul says that "enlightenemt" is, basically, the same thing as "getting a job." I say that enlightenment means realizing that people need more than a paycheck. Paul smells "progress." I smell "BS."
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."