[J m HofMarN]

Spoon - Awww alright... I'm going to deviate from society's ethics and produce some anchovy gelatto for you, let me know if it advances your society!

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 31 March 2010 - 07:09 AM, said:

It might shock you to know that pretty much everyone ever does the same thing (though maybe without the focus on what people did, since a lot of theorists never do much of anything but their work is still valid). People dont just pick up a political thesis and decide it's gospel.

Really? Isn't that how Marxists and Randians came about? Because there's a lot of idiots in the world? I mean people who take the words of Marx and Rand seriously aren't exactly cerebral. Present company included.

[J m HofMarN]

But dont plenty of world leaders, writers, etc, come to mind who studied or practiced Marxism or Randist(i forget what she called her stupid bollocks philosophy...objectivism?) thought?

Randists include Reagan, Bush, etc,
Marxists: Jack London, Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Huey Newton, John Steinbeck, Fidel Castro, etc.

Could it just be that you're not very well read, and bask in your ignorance by insinuating that people who are are all sheep or something?

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 02 April 2010 - 04:22 PM, said:

But dont plenty of world leaders, writers, etc, come to mind who studied or practiced Marxism or Randist(i forget what she called her stupid bollocks philosophy...objectivism?) thought?
Randists include Reagan, Bush, etc,
Marxists: Jack London, Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Huey Newton, John Steinbeck, Fidel Castro, etc.
Could it just be that you're not very well read, and bask in your ignorance by insinuating that people who are are all sheep or something?

Since when does holding office prove your intelligence? Also, I seriously fucking doubt that Bush read Rand. If nothing else, it's because he's obviously a Keynesian.

[J m HofMarN]

You dont get into political office by being an amoeba. And Bush was an avid ready as hard as that is for me to believe. And given hsi right wing tendencies I have no doubt he had at least probed Ayn Rands works.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 12:21 PM, said:

You dont get into political office by being an amoeba. And Bush was an avid ready as hard as that is for me to believe. And given hsi right wing tendencies I have no doubt he had at least probed Ayn Rands works.

Ayn Rand wasn't rightwing or leftwing. She believed that the government should revolve around the individual. Both rightwinger and leftwingers believe that the individual should be servant to the government. In any case, any idiot can see he was a Keynesian.

[J m HofMarN]

I didnt see Keynes or Rand in the only Bush reading list I've been able to find http://online.wsj.co...5706634689.html though its odd that we've read two of the same books, though no doubt for very different reasons. (huey long's bio and the spanish civil war) so I guess it looks pretty inconclusive. Randists seem to disown the guy, and Keynesians do the same. I'd be interested to see any evidence for either view really, especially from the horse's mouth.

[Deucaon]

I meant he was an operational Keynesian. I have no idea if he ever read anything that Keynes wrote. Not that it matters since he wouldn't have to. Economic philosophy is pretty basic stuff. You don't need to read tomes and tomes of what somebody has written to get the basic idea of what they're on about. Apart from that, the man was a figurehead. The people around him, the conniving yet hopelessly mundane officials, were the ones guiding his "policies."

[J m HofMarN]

I can see where you get that with his spending sprees and so forth, but the Randian bits of his policy, tax cuts for the rich, cutting services for the poor, are also apparent. Still even GOPers admit that Bush wondered a far ways off from the ouright Objectivist madness of Ronald Rayguns, so I'll concede the point to you until evidence can be found of just what his political philosophy was, if anything. I do have to point out though that, as a big businessman, he would have surely been drawn to Randist thought, since all her heroes were rich preppy jackasses, and no doubt you can imagine the attraction therein for a guy like Bush.

[Deucaon]

There are a lot of logical fallacies in that post so I won't begin by deciphering them. I will state, though, that Bush is neither egotistical nor has any "reason" to be. Other than that, he bases most of his actions on emotions since he has no brains to speak of. Rand's philosophy dictates that egotistical, sociopathic geniuses would rule. If Bush is the best political mind that America has to offer then you have bigger problems than I thought. I'd also like to add that Bush never "cut services for the poor" since he approved practically every funding bill that pasted his desk, only ever stopping to consider "ethical" consequences.