On Apr 17, 6:13*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/16/11 23:44 , Nickname unavailable wrote:





On Apr 16, 11:02 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 4/16/11 22:37 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 10:26 pm, "D. Peter * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 20:08 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 8:03 pm, "D. Peter * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 15:43 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 10:55 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:55 am, Gary * * * * *wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:29 am, Barack Hates * * * * *wrote:

Obama and his band of liberal fools will dismiss this like they do
anything thats true

You realize it is a work of fiction don't you?

* * * and its a poor one at that. written by a drugged up sex maniac, that
worshiped serial killers. then ended up living on the socialist dole
its easy to start a cult in america, any demagogue can do it, look at
limpballs and beck. america has a lot of people will malformed brains,
lacking the gray matter necessary in the part of the brain that can
understand complex situations. so they flock to cranks, hoping for
some direction in life.

* * * *And there you have it. No substance, only adhoms.

* * * *No impact, here.

* * *i cannot help what shape your brain is in, its a retardation, it
might be environmental, or genes, its hard to say. but its been quite
well reported what rand was. its just to complex for you to
understand.

snicker, i have always felt this was the case:
A new study shows liberals have more gray matter in a part of the
brain related to understanding complexity, while the conservative
brain is bigger in the section linked to fear:How Your Brain May Be
Different Than a Conservative's

* * * Try making an actual case, instead of simply making a personal
insult.

* * i did, and your response proves all of my points. none of what i said
were insults, it was all facts.

* * *LOL!

* *giggling is a sign you know

* * Giggling is a sign that you've done nothing but levelled personal
insults, and defended that as a rational argument.

* * Knowing that you're as empty as your handle is quite amusing.

* * Carry on.

* i posted lots of empirical evidence what rand was.

* *All of it personal insults. What you do not do, is debate the
content, nor the ideas.

* *You simply insult the person.

* *The USENet equivalent of "So's your old man." You either have no
position of substance, or you're not willing to engage one for fear
of defeat in the arena of ideas.

In the case of Rand one has to debate philosophy becuase there
is no substance. Rand was a child of a bourgeois family when,
during the revolution her father's business was taken by government.
This heavily influenced her opinions about socialism. It's amazing
how
the priviledged decry their losses but think nothing of those they
stepped
on to maintain their position of power. Rand wrote "The Virtues of
Selfishness"
but sees no virtue in collective selfishness when facing powerful
people.
I am always reminded of a claim I heard from a bully, "I could take
all of
you one at a time in a fair fight, you had to gang up on me to win."
as if
the fight was fair when to his advantage.

Rand's idealization of her early life lead her to justify the roll of
the oppressor
as if a natural state of affairs based upon the will of the least
moral is in any
way the best.