Brant Gaede

Members
  • Content Count

    24,354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by Brant Gaede

  1. This is not the neocon position. --Brant
  2. I never knew about boils on the ass either--that is, before I read this thread. --Brant thx
  3. Never heard of S.S. before this thread. --Brant I must have missed something
  4. William is a bear baiter. --Brant meow
  5. I knew the forthcoming invasion of Iraq nearly 17 years ago was based on crap. I think most interested people knew it then, but too many wanted to take out the bad boy. A libertarian named Tim Star was all for it. He even started a Yahoo Group dedicated to it. --Brant
  6. Perhaps William is suffering from left intellectual banishment. Wandering about on his own he stumbled onto this Objectivist melieu. Better than nothing, no? --Brant
  7. That's so foreign to me. Maybe he's just feeding us info for us to animadvert upon. And, you know, the left is so intellectually dead maybe he comes here for brainwork--at least of a sort. I can't explain my affection for him, which is neither deep nor broad, except I grew up surrounded by academic liberals. --Brant
  8. Bill doesn't express his views. Not as such. Not on anything important. Sometimes a minor view may escape from the cage. I think he did better on SOLO where L P called him a "schism junky." Regardless, to engage him is not to dismay him. --Brant
  9. The NYT is being bankrolled by Carlos Sim (sp). --Brant or was--but there's always another billionaire sugar daddy waiting in the wings to pay that whore
  10. They are paid to do what they do. --Brant and going with the flow
  11. I took my grandfather's book, "Impeachment, Trials & Errors" (1972) off the bookshelf. Irving Brant wrote it because his friend William O. Douglas was being threatened with Impeachment by Gerald Ford. I don't have time to reread it now decades later, but recommend it for those more interested in the subject than I am today. --Brant
  12. Not a new disciple in this case, just a drive by insulter of Ayn Rand. You know, "naive," "foolish," and "confusing." --Brant and gimme me some words of wisdom; I drink from multiple fountains
  13. As the Dems get weaker Trump gets stronger. I don't wonder why. The MSM and Dems are going down together. --Brant
  14. Porky Pig vrs Daffy Duck with a shotgun. --Brant
  15. What happened to Bill the rapist? Qua raping, nothing then or now. --Brant
  16. Rand's most naïve view (or advocacy to the reader) is that there are no idealational conflicts among those who are "rational." This is derived from human perfectibility. How to counter the perfect Soviet Man (or Nazi Man)? The perfect Randian Man. She was trapped in the binary. Before you advocate for what should be you need to know what is. Rand knew collectivism and its ideology. So she countered with individualism and it's ideology. Great! But she didn't know the non-ideological masses. Therefore Objectivism is reactive to what people ideologically shouldn't be as opposed to reactive to what people in toto really are. Yes, she had some in-betweens. Of Objectivism's four pillars--reality and reason, morality and politics, it's the morality where it therefore mostly falls short and left libertarians short. They didn't buy the center. They had the politics without enough of the morality politics needs. The morality in individual rights is in or from rights only cutting libertarians off from humanity even more than official Objectivism does. Now that we are engaged in cultural warfare--there is no more Age of Reason for now--people of ideas are out of work while the conservatives and hoi American polloi fight it out with the left. We can join the conservatives or sit on our rumps, for this is the Age of Trump. --Brant not sayin' what to do
  17. Things are steadily getting better for the almost seven billion people of planet earth. There are exceptions. --Brant we are discussing two different kinds of personalization: individual and general and there's no getting to the latter without the former
  18. I admit to having some trouble following this discussion, but my take is would-be power follows money and/or extant political power and then it's a fight, maybe over decades or even longer to the political and totalitarian top with a Hitler, Stalin or Mao crushing or subjugating all opposition. The Arms of Krupp were the arms of Hitler. Today the left is a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off, but still shitting all over the place so I don't get this "Gang" business no matter how I try. Trump, a businessman, has moved into the void created by the now completely defunct intellectual left and the chickens have lost control of their bowels. --Brant
  19. True enough except no they won't ,😀 --Brant
  20. True enough, but the dollar is not backed by oil. It's a world of fiat currencies priced against each other. The defacto credit worthiness of the dollar is unsurpassed. Still, the dollar is not a store of wealth. Assets are stores of wealth. In a hundred years today's buck, if it still exists, will be worth 2 to 5 cents. Gold could be about the same value as today. A share in the S and P 500 (or 2000)--low cost Vanguard--50 to 100 times today's purchasing power. Etc. --Brant
  21. I don't think Saudi production costs are $80/barrel. I think they need $80. The danger to the dollar is a minor issue. War is the major danger. Sanctions are an act of war. They are hurting the Iranian people, not their rulers. It makes them stronger. We are instigating a war. Doing it all wrong. The stronger the Iranian people the relatively weaker the rulers. When they seriously start to take those rulers down we jump in with whatever to give them the advantage. FDR knew he was provoking war with Japan so he could go fight Hitler. Today nobody knows shit. --Brant