3 edits
@wajoma saidHaha. You got me. I looked up the story, and it's only $400 million. I'll eat crow for that.
He better be talking about the gospel of Rand 'all the time' or I'm calling BS, and evidence of him bailing out a stadium, or I'm calling BS.
Ok, it doesn't need to be a stadium, something else.
I have never professed to be an expert. My very first post I stated that I am a Libertarian and Capitalist, not an Objectivist.
You made the promise, Scott Walker talking a ...[text shortened]... r come through on it or your house might get blown up.
What an ijit. Had enough toying with you.
The gospel of Rand "all the time"? Did you miss the part of the sentence after the comma? Obviously it's not Randian to give away hundreds of millions of tax dollars. I don't know why you'd interpret it that way.
Scott Walker used Randian arguments to strip hundreds of millions out of the public school system, to eliminate tenure at the University, to end benefits that teachers were counting on for retirement. Then he turned around and used all that money to fund a private construction project for a billionaire.
I understand the Randian arguments in theory. But in the end, from a practical standpoint, government never gets smaller. Walker redistributed tax dollars from first generation college kids and used it to fund a stadium for his friend. This is how Rand works in reality.
https://archive.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-to-sign-bucks-arena-funding-bill-at-wisconsin-state-fair-b99555622z1-321544131.html/
2 edits
@wildgrass saidHaha, indeed.
Haha. You got me. I looked up the story, and it's only $400 million. I'll eat crow for that.
The gospel of Rand "all the time"? Did you miss the part of the sentence after the comma? Obviously it's not Randian to give away hundreds of millions of tax dollars. I don't know why you'd interpret it that way.
Scott Walker used Randian arguments to strip hundreds of million ...[text shortened]... cs/scott-walker-to-sign-bucks-arena-funding-bill-at-wisconsin-state-fair-b99555622z1-321544131.html/
I checked the link, not one mention of Rand, no mention of the Rand gospel, and especially at zero mentions, he was not talking about Rand 'all the time'.
The BS label stands.
Funding the stadium is anti-thetical to everything Rand said and anti-thetical to everything, a person, with even a glancing understanding of would know about Rands work. Which leads us to the unpleasant conclusion, if anyone has been dumbed down it's.....
Also Rand was a strong atheist, who remarked that she tried to introduce a religious character to 'Atlas Shrugged' but couldn't make it believable.
You hate Walker because he directed taxpayer money to a stadium, a stance that Rand was totally opposed to. We're still trying to get to the bottom of where you stand on Corporate Welfare-
1/ Opposed to Rand and beside Walker i.e for the funding of the stadium with public money or...
2/ with Rand, as a Randroid, totally opposed to the publicly funded stadium.
How tedious your slimey slithering. Completely ignores the that the 'all the time' was in relation to how much Walker supposedly talks about Rand. Not much as it turns out.
2 edits
@shavixmir saidCould be shag doody for brains, could be, except this time it was wildgrass that introduced the term about 14 posts back and after repeat challenges wildgrass continues to squirm like a bait worm on my the end of my hook.
Ahhh… the Rand gospel.
So made up shyte by fan boys.
wildgrass said:
"I am not an Ayn Rand hater, I just hate people who love Ayn Rand. No idea who she is referring to here, just making stuff up, throwing baseless labels around)
Then she sited Walker as an example. We've been unable to find any evidence of Walker talking about Rand 'all the time'. But he did direct public money to the pollies favorite boondoggle a stadium. The question that has been asked repeatedly is:
Wildgrass,
1/ Do you side with Walker and against Rand, and in so doing support the billionaire corporate handouts?
2/ Or do you side with Rand and all the randroids making a principled stand opposed to public money going to a private stadium. And this is very important wildgrass, principle. It can't be you just saying 'I don't like that' or vice versa.
Let's face it these things are a complete scam where pollies hand money to private contractors then somewhere, somehow some of it flows back to the pollie. Campaign contributions...whatever.
@wajoma saidAnd you've missed it again... whhooosh.
Haha, indeed.
I checked the link, not one mention of Rand, no mention of the Rand gospel, and especially at zero mentions, he was not talking about Rand 'all the time'.
The BS label stands.
Funding the stadium is anti-thetical to everything Rand said and anti-thetical to everything, a person, with even a glancing understanding of would know about Rands work. Which le ...[text shortened]... the time' was in relation to how much Walker supposedly talks about Rand. Not much as it turns out.
Why would Ayn rand.be mentioned in an article about public stadium funding?
The Randians use personal responsibility a la rand to justify removing social safety net benefits.
But instead of shrinking government, as rand probably would have preferred, they go off and spend it on some vanity project. Every.. dang.. time.
This is the fundamental problem.
1 edit
@wajoma saidNope.
We're clear then, the response to breach of contract may be force and threats of force.
Legal remedies are implied in the contract itself and an experienced businessman like Roark would know that. Thus, Roark agreed to them and force is only used against those who do not comply with them in a forceful manner.
No contract reasonably implies a "right" to destroy others property through self-help. You and Roark both know that.
EDIT: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that any act of violence is justified against someone A accuses of breaching a contract. And this seems based on the idea that because societal regulations are backed by threats of force in the last resort, acts of private violence are justified even if they are not done in self-defense but out of simple commercial disputes.
@wajoma saidWhy is calling people "she" your biggest, most common put-down?
Could be shag doody for brains, could be, except this time it was wildgrass that introduced the term about 14 posts back and after repeat challenges wildgrass continues to squirm like a bait worm on my the end of my hook.
wildgrass said:
"I am not an Ayn Rand hater, I just hate people who love Ayn Rand. No idea who she is referring to here, just making stuff up, t ...[text shortened]... tors then somewhere, somehow some of it flows back to the pollie. Campaign contributions...whatever.
@wildgrass saidOpposing views can be reported in the same article. A good article would report the two sides, that's one explanation. Rand was totally opposed to publicly funded stadiums so it would be good to see a principled stand against the stadium.
Why would Ayn rand.be mentioned in an article about public stadium funding?
In this case: No Mention of Rand in the article.
I already told you that. You thought you could just sneak that past? twice? I'm done with you. You make stuff up and double down on it. We're still waiting to see Walker talking about Rand 'all the time' thus proving his 'love' for her ideas. More stuff made up.
@wajoma said"I'm done with you" is what toddlers say when they walk away from a debate they lost.
Opposing views can be reported in the same article. A good article would report the two sides, that's one explanation. Rand was totally opposed to publicly funded stadiums so it would be good to see a principled stand against the stadium.
In this case: No Mention of Rand in the article.
I already told you that. You thought you could just sneak tha ...[text shortened]... Walker talking about Rand 'all the time' thus proving his 'love' for her ideas. More stuff made up.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/scott-walker-is-trolling-us/