I'm Not Ready for the Gulch
Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
Through much of AS, Dagny opposes the destroyer. She isn't ready to give up on American society yet. It makes sense because she built a segment of American society. She's pained to see it looted away and then decay in mismanagement by the looters.
It doesn't seem believable to me how quickly some of the producers seem to give up in the face of gov't meddling. You'd think they'd use the same acumen with which they deal with investors, customers, employees, and vendors, to explain to the politicians and the people they supposedly represent that their policies were tantamount to looting.
Eventually all the main characters give up on society in favor of the Gulch. It almost reads like the flood myth which crops up all around the world: People become decadent. The world is destroyed except for a few righteous people. This paves the way for a new and better world.
Some of the flood myth stories are probably related, but I also suspect that humans are adapted to be drawn to stories of an apocalypse cleansing away the evils of the world.
I am where Dagny is in the middle of the book (except I'm not a business genius), not even close to ready to give up. Like so many important causes, people tend to promote it by saying things are going to the devil. You don't hear arguments like “Domestic violence is way down thanks to the hard work of many people. Until it's zero, though, we still need help reducing it further.” Instead they tend to find some statistics that make it feel like domestic violence is an epidemic.
Liberty is more fundamental than something like domestic violence, but it plays out the same way. If you say things are good and need to get better, people see that as denying the issue.
The Gulch website members are like the Gulch members in the book. At one point they were focused on making things happen in the world-- selling management or investors on risky projects with huge potential, getting people on the same page, serving clients, building their “brand” as it were. They're tired of fighting to make projects work and fighting politics at the same time. Website members are probably still out there making stuff happen, but they long for a Gulch where they can do it without all the baloney.
“Why don't people talk about all the cool stuff they're working on instead of how bad the legal / regulatory environment is?” I wonder. The answer is obvious: This website is called the “Gulch”, not “Producers saving the looters' world.”
I love the idea of a Gulch. I love Seasteads and startup incubators on ships. There is loads of science fiction about people moving to space and breaking away as the US did. I love Thomas Jefferson's hope that America would have people in different places experimenting with vastly different rule systems. If the destroyer came for my wife (her business is succeeding at the moment) and our family, however, there's is NO WAY we'd go to the Gulch. We would never leave all our friends and family and everything we've built here. Escaping on plane out of Truax and watching the Capitol dome and surrounding Isthmus go dark like Dagny is a nightmare, not something I could see anything good in.
I plan to stop using this website in a few days. People here think I'm at best a Pollyanna and at worst someone whose tiny lobbying efforts (e.g. keeping HSAs allowed under PPACA) paradoxically help the looters by postponing the apocalypse. This is a pivotal time, an automation revolution I think, and we need all producers making defending liberty a primary avocation. I'm far from quitting. The Gulch is not for me.
It doesn't seem believable to me how quickly some of the producers seem to give up in the face of gov't meddling. You'd think they'd use the same acumen with which they deal with investors, customers, employees, and vendors, to explain to the politicians and the people they supposedly represent that their policies were tantamount to looting.
Eventually all the main characters give up on society in favor of the Gulch. It almost reads like the flood myth which crops up all around the world: People become decadent. The world is destroyed except for a few righteous people. This paves the way for a new and better world.
Some of the flood myth stories are probably related, but I also suspect that humans are adapted to be drawn to stories of an apocalypse cleansing away the evils of the world.
I am where Dagny is in the middle of the book (except I'm not a business genius), not even close to ready to give up. Like so many important causes, people tend to promote it by saying things are going to the devil. You don't hear arguments like “Domestic violence is way down thanks to the hard work of many people. Until it's zero, though, we still need help reducing it further.” Instead they tend to find some statistics that make it feel like domestic violence is an epidemic.
Liberty is more fundamental than something like domestic violence, but it plays out the same way. If you say things are good and need to get better, people see that as denying the issue.
The Gulch website members are like the Gulch members in the book. At one point they were focused on making things happen in the world-- selling management or investors on risky projects with huge potential, getting people on the same page, serving clients, building their “brand” as it were. They're tired of fighting to make projects work and fighting politics at the same time. Website members are probably still out there making stuff happen, but they long for a Gulch where they can do it without all the baloney.
“Why don't people talk about all the cool stuff they're working on instead of how bad the legal / regulatory environment is?” I wonder. The answer is obvious: This website is called the “Gulch”, not “Producers saving the looters' world.”
I love the idea of a Gulch. I love Seasteads and startup incubators on ships. There is loads of science fiction about people moving to space and breaking away as the US did. I love Thomas Jefferson's hope that America would have people in different places experimenting with vastly different rule systems. If the destroyer came for my wife (her business is succeeding at the moment) and our family, however, there's is NO WAY we'd go to the Gulch. We would never leave all our friends and family and everything we've built here. Escaping on plane out of Truax and watching the Capitol dome and surrounding Isthmus go dark like Dagny is a nightmare, not something I could see anything good in.
I plan to stop using this website in a few days. People here think I'm at best a Pollyanna and at worst someone whose tiny lobbying efforts (e.g. keeping HSAs allowed under PPACA) paradoxically help the looters by postponing the apocalypse. This is a pivotal time, an automation revolution I think, and we need all producers making defending liberty a primary avocation. I'm far from quitting. The Gulch is not for me.
Previous comments...
Some days, I would welcome going to the Gulch, as much as the daily strength of living such a life would require. Yeah, we can lapse in the looters world. However, you know that sooner or later, things either get better, or they get worse. That is what this sight is about, trying to connect and share ideas for making it better.
Some days, I feel like either burying my head or heading for the Gulch. On a federal level, we have a Marxist in the White House, socialist controlling Congress, the Constitution in shreds - where to find hope with such looters?
Sometimes, living in a good place helps. Sadly, recently, our Midwest state has been taken over by RINOs and the corruption from state to local is overpowering. Drugs come in, in a steady flow. Law enforcement seems to be connected, the good church people businessmen seem to be profiting from the activity, while the newspaper is in the pocket of this faction. It is an open secret in town. The state AG is either connected or involved. The FBI in another state knows of the activity in our state, but federally does nothing. One has hope, the right people will either fall or just die of old age. Short of that, how to oust the looters and reclaim our once lovely rural town.
How to reclaim our republic when both Dems and Republicans are of a like mind about world government.
So, we stick our heads in the sand, do nothing, and pretend life is just fine. I have a lot of relatives doing just that. When I told them the House under Pelosi had then scheduled in committee to seize 401K money - they said they did not want to think about it. The German's once said something similar.
So, we come to the virtual Gulch, share ideas and try to find hope. Try to find what little we might be able to do. We share we cannot live in a Marxist controlled world which means only harm for our kids and and grandkids.
I wish you the best, and know we are here if you want to just vent when things get too rough..
Running a business that spent several hundred thousand dollars preparing for 2014 and the implementation of Obamacare, only to have the rules changed on us yet again, my frustration is off the chart. This executive in the White House is nonsensical. The leadership in Congress is comical. Yet WE are the bad guys.
We all need to continue to fight the good fight. Win over peoples hearts first and their minds second. If we can't, then we take our families and all head to The Gulch.
But Ayn Rand got it wrong when she swapped one set of predatory ideals for another - that’s not an improvement. That’s why her heroes come across as petulant self absorbed villains instead of noble icons.
Under the law of the jungle, predators are good, the ends justifies the means, eat or be eaten, kill or be killed, the winner takes all.
But under the law of love, harmless productive people are good, and greatest love is self-sacrifice for the sake of another. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...” - “Love thy neighbor, as thyself...” - “Love thy enemies...” -
For all the good ideas expressed in “Atlas Shrugged”, they fall far short, when measured against the law of love.
Currently, world supply of gold bullion is 5.6 billion ounces, versus 7 billion population. That computes to less than one ounce per capita ($16 if coined in harmony with the Coinage Act of 1792). Far too little to function as a medium of exchange.
As for usury, that has been denounced for "only" 3500 years, proscribed by all religions as an abomination, and mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system due to the exponential equation used for compound interest. In short, usury was and is a scam to legally steal.
Now, if AR had John Galt and company come up with solutions that did not include usury and hard money, THAT would have catapulted Atlas Shrugged into the Stratosphere.
As long as money madness keeps impairing trade, civilization will fail to achieve full prosperity.
The #1 problem is that making any "thing" (a subset of the set) into an abstraction for value of the whole set, breeds a mathematical paradox.
That has been the problem with precious metal coin throughout history. The supply of bullion can never keep up with the demand. Trade gets choked, and the civilization eventually falls.
When people figure out that constraining their trade to the supply of money is foolish, then, we may see unleashed prosperity.
Each passing day I read what going on and I see AS book coming alive. Without a Gulch, I could go too. Ayn Ryan clearly saw a the future when she wrote the book.
Regardless, get your facts straight before you call something a myth. The evidence for a worldwide catastrophic flood is all around (and under) you. Dr. Walt Brown (ret USAF COL, former Army Ranger, received his PhD from MIT, National Science Foundation Fellow, etc...) detailed a lot of solid evidences (and has made more than a few hypotheses that were later proven true when they were studied) in his book, which is freely available on his website, www.creationscience.com
Regarding the REST of your post, I've spent all my 33 years trying to teach and educate people about these basic principles of freedom. The older I get, the more I realize, most people just don't care enough to sit and learn.
As a matter of fact, even those who DO know and understand, are "more disposed to suffer, whilst evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed".
Those guys weren't stupid. They knew human nature, they knew history (waaaaaaaay better than we do today on average).
Me personally, I would gladly sell (or even give up) everything I have to move to a nation that is truly free. A nation where the Constitution means something. Fix some of the idiotic things that have been put into it since it's adoption (direct election of senators, income tax), and put one amendment at the end that says "any law passed by congress, or action made by the president or his officers, must explicitly detail, in writing, the article and section in the Constitution that explicitly gives them the authority to make that law or take that action".
The looters' world is dying. When you realize a ship is sinking, why wouldn't you start looking for land immediately?
I wished that everyone would write a reference as to whom they are responding to. I was not able to find the writer to whom your message was addressed.
Having said that, I second your suggestion that any law considered for passage must include the following as you suggest. "....any law passed by congress, or action made by the president or his officers, must explicitly detail, in writing, the article and section in the Constitution that explicitly gives them the authority to make that law or take that action" I would add one more thing, that is that any law must apply to everyone including all members of Congress.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
On the rest of it, read his book, it's a theory, if you find errors, he'll look into them and correct them, I've talked back and forth with him and some of my points are in his 8th edition (the one on the site now).
I'm pretty sure we have less than 10 years. Probably less than 5. Maybe only 1 or 2.
Guns, ammo, food, water, silver, gold, medicine, fuel. You may have to defend your "gulch".
Please... get off the women-haters club agenda, at least here...
I like dogs. Really. I like dogs more than most people. Dogs tend to be more honest. But dogs have their limitations.
I would not advocate that my dog should vote.
It's the same with women.
Oh, now I'll be labeled a "dog hater" by people who lack critical reasoning skills.
I assume that by the statement above you consider yourself someone with "critical reasoning skills." Sadly you seem to have very little.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
He picked them up and rolled them back."
"Gomez, take those out of his mouth..."
Maybe I'm being too tough on dogs. It's hard to conceive that dogs would have a WORSE voting record than women. And when it comes to pressuring for social welfare programs and pushing for trillions of dollars in debt to fund them, it's hard to imagine dogs being so stupid.
In the 70+ age group, you're shorter than 72% of men, but taller than 89% of women.
So even in the individual case, the single factor, height, isn't dispositive.
Let's take another factor - race. If I know you're black and voted in the last election, the probability you voted for Obama is about 93%.
Did I say that women were the only group too stupid to vote? In fact, the highest percentage of Obama voters was… think hard now…
… black women.
He also thinks he's the only one not too-stupid to vote.
Pfaugh! Nonsense.
Clearly those (the majority) who vote to spend money we don't have, who vote to expand the government, who have put us $17 trillion in debt facing $211 trillion in unfunded mandates over the next 50 years are the enemy.
If someone came around to your house with a gun and demanded you hand over your earnings for their benefit… enemy, or not?
Well, guess what? Women are sending government agents around to people's houses (with the threat of guns) to steal their money for programs that benefit primarily women.
It would be nice if the women who all voted for Obama had a tattoo on their foreheads saying "stupid" for easy identification. We could just stop feeding them.
Even though BambiB seems to have an affection for dogs which is a pale shadow of my regard for dogs, we are not, in fact, the same person, nor do we even know each other.
I just want this to be clear.
No we're not!
Wait… do you let YOUR dog vote? Why or why not?
Imagine that. A talking dog.
With a name like Bambi I would have expected a woman, but apparently all I can find is a woman hater. Sad, truly sad.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
That was not the lot of women in the medieval age, which would have been about 1500 to 500 years ago.
As for the era from the inception of the nation until approximately WWII, I'd say the traditional roles men and women fulfilled did the country a lot more good than do the roles they play at now.
I beg to differ with you as to the place of women in medieval times. Other than women in the aristocracy, they had little influence over men. They spent the majority of their time gathering vegetables, cooking, getting water at the well or river and raising children.
I do agree with you that family life has suffered since women have taken a greater role in the workforce and one could argue that this resulted in the problems of our youth today. I would however add that the abandonment of standards and discipline is the result of these changes. We need to find a way to reinstall discipline and bring faith back into our lives.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
"I think of a man and take away reason and accountability".
In many ways, women are like children. They don't think ahead, they don't accept responsibility for their votes, they do what they "feel" is right - not what they "think" is right (if they think at all).
Do you let your (hypothetical) 12-year-old vote? Society doesn't. Is that because society "hates" your 12-year-old? Or because 12-year-olds lack the fundamental ability to make informed decisions?
I'd call the former line "the general case" and the latter "the specific case".
No doubt, women CAN have a positive influence on society. But they shouldn't vote. They don't have a freaking clue what they're doing when they vote.
Had no *man* voted for Obama, he wouldn't have gotten elected. Had no black person voted for Obama, he wouldn't have gotten elected. Had no *white* person voted for Obama, he wouldn't have gotten elected.
I'm not saying they can't talk… irritating as that may be… but the problem is, as a group, I have yet to see any case where they have been unwilling to spend money we do… not… have. That includes at least 48 states and the Federal government, which you already know if you checked the links I've provided.
How do you deal with an idea that is counter to your personal prejudices? Slap a label on it and dismiss it? Never reach the reasoning… in fact, never reason at all. Just issue a gut-level, emotional dismissal and move on to your next emotional outburst.
Here's a variation: "You're an idiot. No one should listen to you. Everyone should ignore you as much as possible."
Problem is, with an approach like that, you never learn anything and you demonstrate rather conclusively that you don't think - you emote. You can't reason - you only have emotional explosions. You're not a thinking adult - you're a petulant child who throws tantrums.
Now, I don't have any problem with you calling Coulter a neo-fascist. Or calling me a neo-fascist. I really don't mind if you call Mimi a neo-fascist. But you're not very interesting if you don't say why, and you're laughably inept if the reasons you give are weak.
So tell us all, what do you mean by "neo-fascist", how is that different from "fascist", and what concrete reasons do you have for believing Coulter is a neo-fascist?
Women have been working to destroy America since at least 1870. See http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ivers...
Maybe some dogs or 12-year-olds ARE smart enough to vote. Does that mean we should let them all vote?
Well, you could have fooled me and from what I've read, many others about whether you hate women or not. true, hate is a strong word, how about disrespect, because everything you say about women and their reasoning power can also be said about many men. I would have to include you in that group. No insult intended, but you are the one claiming that women have no reasoning power. Does the name Margaret Thatcher ring a bell? I of course am not afraid of women so I'll include Sarah Palin in the group of women that can reason. I would love to read examples of women that you feel can't reason, Nancy Pelosi doesn't count. If they were all like her, i would agree with you.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
I can understand that you dislike Palin, many do although I tend to judge her on what I consider her common sense. We'll just have to disagree on that one.
As to the judgement comment, I assume you were explaining your dislike for her not being based on her being a woman and I certainly don't question that. As to the Asian and Albanian references, I don't recall having made any comment that would have caused you to think that group acceptance is a factor for me. I like you, believe in the worht of everyone as individuals.
Fred
It's a scenario that doesn't really make sense.
Voting is an act where an individual vote rarely makes any difference (especially where as many as 120 million votes are cast). But groups, in the aggregate, DO make differences. The tendency of women to vote to spend money we do not have is well documented. Is the trait true of any particular woman selected at random? Who cares? (Unless your finances are somehow tied to hers.) It's only as a group that women are destroying America.
So it's Apples and Pomegranates.
In a related topic, from your own personal experience, who are the better engineers - men or women? Be honest now.
In your opinion, who are the better engineers - the British or the Romans? Be honest now.
Your point is a good one, but keep in mind that there are many reasons why some people, males, females and nationalities are better at some things than others. Are there no excellent female engineers, I believe there are, but not as many on a percentage basis. Are there no male nurses, yes there are, but again not as many. Romans once ruled the known world as have the British, now they are no longer the powers of the world. Empires rise and empires fall in a world sense as well as in a more narrow sense such as the skills of men and women.
Fred
If someone puts me through to a woman on the phone, I suspect I'm not talking to an engineer. If I HAD to judge based on sex alone, I'd want to talk to a man. What matters, though, is ability to get stuff working. Even if I don't have time to see if someone can get stuff working, I can just talk to someone and see if they know about engineer. In the bizarre scenario where I can't see resume and can't ask any questions and are only aware of someone's sex, I'd guess the man is the better engineer. If I were only told race, I guess the Asian is better. This is all stupid, though, because there are no cases where I have to judge engineering ability based on physical appearance. It's a hypothetical scenario that never comes up.
Because he's not confident in his own reasoning ability, he needs women as "straw-men" to denigrate so that he feels his unconsciously perceived lack of reasoning ability is adequate.
Or Bambi is actually a female who fancies being under the control of man.
She appears to have issues where men are concerned.
On election night, while singing the praises of the vile Geraldine Ferraro, she condemned anyone who criticized her for dragging her special needs child on the campaign trail with her as being "Neanderthals" who need "to be dragged into the 21st century".
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/29010/pal...
On her reality show, she was out hunting. One of her self-proclamations was that she was this great outdoorsman. An elk stood in plain sight a hundred yards or so out, silhouetted on the skyline. She asked her father every step of the way what to do. When she missed the elk, and it stood there looking at her like, "wtf, how could you miss me?" she actually asked her dad if she should shoot again.
I've noticed other incidents where men managed to fluster her, particularly where feminist issues are concerned. Contrast her behavior with, say, Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter in similar situations, and one begins to notice it.
Oh, side note; I'd like to squelch the use of the term "Neanderthal". The stereotype doesn't fit what we know about the species, and there's a strong possibility that it is the actions of humans that caused their extinction. I think it's hypocritical for people who would be aghast at open, derisive characterizations of people based upon race, sex or ethnicity, to throw the word "Neanderthal" around.
Thank you for your response, however the link you sent to Debbie Schlussel's column about Sarah Palin was more in line with the likes of Bashir on MSNBC than a legitimate critique of Palin.
No doubt Palin has her faults, but I would take Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's opinion of her abilities over Ms, Schlussel's.
As to Palins comments about Ferraro, I think that was more a question of politeness rather than an endorsement of Ferraro's abilities. I happen to agree with you that Ferraro was not the shining light during her campaign, but then I can't think if a liberal that can bring light to darkness.
As to Palin having issues with men, I just don't see it. I'm making my judgement more on what she has had to say during the campaign as well as in the aftermath. I guess we'll just have agree to disagree.
The speaking fee incident, if still true is somewhat troubling and I will research the facts on that matter. If true, the she has much to explain and would no longer be a factor for me.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
I am trying to picture who is being offended, when I use the term "Neanderthal" negatively?
Oh well...you may be onto something. I think that I will stop using one of my favorite putdowns: 'dumb ass dinosaur'! ;-)
It sure seems like Sarah Palin gets picked on for the silliest stuff.. What's the deal with that? Is she lying? Misleading? Pretending? Hiding? Seriously I don't get why everyone seems to have a beef with her when so many other politicians etc. are actually behaving badly.
Ann Coulter? Did I hear you say "Ann Coulter"?
I got your Ann Coulter right here!
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter...
==> "Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry — love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn't taken seriously either."
(On Abu Graib and women in the military)
==> "I think the other point that no one is making about the abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation. I mean, this is lesson, you know, number 1,000,047 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious."
==> "I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."
==> "Conservatives have a problem with women. For that matter, all men do."
==> "There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats."
**** And then it gets fun! ****
==> "Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back."
==> "That was the theme of the Million Mom March: I don't need a brain — I've got a womb."
==> "It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"
==> "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
==> "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in '64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."
==> "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."
Oh wait! …women don't understand money, are voting too stupidly to be trusted with the vote? The Demoncratic party is the "party of women"? Where have I heard THAT before?
Oh yeah. I said it. Right before a bunch of cornballs started calling me a "woman hater".
So come on, dimwits… is Ann Coulter a "woman hater" too? Or is she just telling the truth?
then became critical of Coulter when he found out she supported my thesis that women should… not… vote.
Has nothing to do with her comfort dealing with men. Has a lot to do with her politics.
And in case you can't figure it out, Coulter is not being sarcastic when she says women should not vote. She's stating an opinion. You might get away with mischaracterizing a single statement, but you'd have to be an idiot to think this was all sarcasm. She means what she says. She cites the REASONS for what she says. The reasons are not hyperbolic, they're rational. The Country would be better off if women could not vote.
" ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
==> "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in '64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."
==> "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."
Coulter is a bomb-thrower. Always has been, always will be as long as she has a book out there. Her issues aren't the same as Palin's.
Michele Bachmann is another woman who doesn't have issues with men. Erase Coulter and stick her in my comparison, instead.
The topic of *my* comment wasn't *your* misogyny, but Palin's issues.
Even if I grant that all the three women you've listed had exceptional reasoning skills, that does not explain the 35 million women who voted for Obama… twice.
Try dropping your preconceptions (you probably can't) and impartially analyzing what has happened and why since women began getting the vote in 1870. We're $17 trillion in debt, face $211 trillion in unfunded mandates over the next 50 years and are currently borrowing about 25 cents of every Federal dollar spent. That's what the women's vote has done.
I would love love to see your reasoning of why you think women are responsible for the debt. And even if they were, how does that justify your disparagement of women and wanting to take their right to vote. citizens, whether male of female are equal in the eyes of the law and no reasoning on anyone's part can deny that right.
I will agree that women tend to vote more on emotion, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Great response, I would guess that manners are not in the forefront of you behavior patters. I've read many of your comments and the links that I was able to find. However, those links don't prove your point at all, nor do they excuse your boorish behavior, nit to mention your outright hatred for women which is very obvious.
I've ask you for proof of why women are responsible for the debt or anything else of consequence any more than men are, Nothing from you other than the refuge of scoundrels and people who can't come up with any real facts from reliable sources.
I can only assume that you went through a terrible divorce and gained your insight into women during your time in court.
Nevertheless I wish you all the best and will no longer waste my time engaging you in any debate due to your inability to understand the basic concept of courtesy.
Fred
Thank you for your concern and warning about BambiB. It's truly a shame that he has so many hangups. Sometimes he puts thought into his opinions and then destroys his credibility with his woman hating antics. As I wrote to the webmaster of this site. they truly need an editor not just here but on all sites that deal in politics, economics and religion.
Fred Speckmann
If I hadn't already posted the links THREE TIMES I wouldn't have bitten your head off. I would have just posted it again and pointed out that you were stupid or lazy. At some point, it doesn't pay to suffer a fool.
Two-year-olds ask the same question over-and-over - even when given the answer over-and-over again. I expected better of you - and was disappointed.
Because you are too stupid to know how to click a link, or too lazy, I will, through manifest magnanimity post the links ONE MORE TIME. If you have anything more credible than your babbling to contraindicate the findings, post away. My bet is you've got... nothing.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ivers...
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashT...
If you can't ebgage in civilized debate then you should find the rest of the trolls and you can exchange all the insults you want. It's interesting that people who engage in insults seldom if ever use their real names as a signature.
Good bye and good luck on your inability to convince anyone of your woman hating preferences. too bad, if you tried to discuss subjects in a civilized manner you would perhaps persuade someone.
Fred
It would be interesting to know what exactly I should apply logic to? From your post, I have no idea what exactly you are referring to.
A little clarity would help
Fred
I can only surmise that's because you lied and did NOT look at the links, or you lacked the capacity to understand them. I invite everyone here to review the research for themselves and (whether they agree with the conclusions or not) say quite clearly whether the research supports my statements that women are the cause of debt in America.
based on his response, I'd guess either "unemployed", or "plant".
2) And you choose a word that isn't a misspelled? (In other words you're mistaken in your apprehension of a mistake?)
3) Well, at least you know how words are "spelt". (In America, the world is "spelled".)
4) Sorry to see you reach this level of desperation, but it's quite common among the unknowledgeable.
I like the word ‘spelt’ more so than ‘spelled’. I’m free to choose one version over the other since both are grammatically correct.
I guess my point is your'e not perfect, Cookie.
Of course, your response is typical of people who have nothing to contribute. You can't wrap your brain around an idea, or come up with a counter to an argument you dislike, so you launch the best attack you can - an ad hominem attack based on an irrelevancy… like a typo.
So, in this Gulch, you'd be Philip Rearden...
Being somebody's stooge doesn't exempt you from being comfortably wealthy or an independent business owner.
You're right, though. I did leave out the possibility that you have a job of which you're ashamed.
I'm not in the business of quoting prices on bottles of water, hating on customers as they try to pick out the right burrito or chasing down pickle thieves. If I'd said, $6/hour, would it have been something you recognized?
Perhaps it's time you considered that your imagination it simply too limited to conceive of the sorts of jobs I might do and let it go at that.
I’m just killing time between shopping trips for shoes--lovely, lovely shoes.
Like Hiraghm and "Reefer Madness"!
;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azf320JDd...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLvX-erAB...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCUBVS4k...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNtxTJh0n...
(here's the whole thing for you - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCt_7p5Hz... )