Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all

Is it true that Trump actually went on a rant about the size of his penis on a debate?
Well, it's one thing to sell an ideology to people for money, it's another thing to die for it when you're old and infirm.OK. I just find it strange considering she wrote COLOSSAL books basically saying benefits are bad.
New Deal 2.0, you mean?I imagine a second great depression will occur and then America will go through huge societal change.
Didn't Ayn Rand collect social security?
Probably, but don't tell that to a Rand disciple or they'll launch into a fifty page diatribe about how it's not true.
OK. I just find it strange considering she wrote COLOSSAL books basically saying benefits are bad.
Well, it's one thing to sell an ideology to people for money, it's another thing to die for it when you're old and infirm.
More or less, there's no other way for America to change; Trump will become president, bring more ruin to the economy, then he'll be replaced by an even bigger idiot and then somebody with some common sense will come in and fix shit, just like FDR.
Or America will spectacularly fall apart and nuke the world to oblivion and, from America's ashes will rise a slave empire and a new democratic republic and they will battle for control of the Mid-West. Ave, True to Trump.
Are you blaming the stock-market crash on FDR when he took office four years after it occurred? Or was that a typo? Or am I fucking up the date at which FDR was sworn in?
Anyway the New deal had it's bumps as any major economical legislature will have, show me a major bill that didn't greatly affect people in negative and positive ways. Or correct me, I know shit all about American history so most of my knowledge comes from skimmed wikipedia articles.
the new deal couldn't create the depression. The depression was already going on by the time FDR took office. Most of the New Deal created safety nets, social security, ways to ensure the depression wouldn't happen again. Not exactly ways to helps it out of the depression. WWII pulled the U.S out of the depression by restoring production. So I guess it was ingeniously planned and maybe a coincidence at the same time.She always claimed that the state is wrong in stealing money from you to fund such programs, but that you should not refuse it if they offer to give some back. What was the alternative, leaving it to the state?
The sad thing is, you could find that out by yourself through a single google search, yet you didn't even care to challenge the thought since it fits your narrative so well.
FDR fixed shit? Did you know that there was also a stock market crisis around 1920 which was just as serious as the one FDR "fixed", the only difference being that the government didn't meddle in private affairs, and that it was over before you knew it? The New Deal practically created the depression.
No clue? Not beeing a hypocrite? Following your defintion, she was one of all those parasites, no? And she was not very intelligent either because rich = intelligent for you, as far as I can judge from previous discussions.She always claimed that the state is wrong in stealing money from you to fund such programs, but that you should not refuse it if they offer to give some back. What was the alternative, leaving it to the state?
More or less, there's no other way for America to change; Trump will become president, bring more ruin to the economy, then he'll be replaced by an even bigger idiot and then somebody with some common sense will come in and fix shit, just like FDR.
Or America will spectacularly fall apart and nuke the world to oblivion and, from America's ashes will rise a slave empire and a new democratic republic and they will battle for control of the Mid-West. Ave, True to Trump.
No clue? Not beeing a hypocrite? Following your defintion, she was one of all those parasites, no? And she was not very intelligent either because rich = intelligent for you, as far as I can judge from previous discussions.
So I am not entirely sure why you would defend her. She could not even live up to her own standards. The best kind of people, preaching all day about abstinenze, but whoring around at night.
Ayn Rand said:Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”
I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.
There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.
A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.
The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.
Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it .
Didn't JFK come in and try to "fix shit" ?
The same thing will happen to any person who tries to "fix shit", richpeopleassholes who own 95% of the planet will not allow anyone to "fix shit", cause these rich cunts really need 15 super cars plus that gold plated ivory back scratcher.
You know what? I wish your profession would be a Judge in court. Here's why:How is it hypocrisy if she never told people not to do it? She held that people who oppose the welfare state have a right to them as restitution, while those who support it have no right to them.
Com on ... you can not be so obtuse ... no one, NO ONE here is talking about "eating the rich" or to hang them or geting medieval on their asses. And no one is talking about being entitled to super fast cars, seriously, I even grant those rich people their fast cars, their ships and planes and their diamonds or gold and such.This whole "eat the rich" rhetoric is really tiresome. It's painfully obvious that you want the ivory back scrathcher and envy those who have it, otherwise you would just enjoy the more humble back scratcher you have now instead of bitching against the rich. Why do you think that you're entitled to one of their super cars?
Don't presume to know anything about my life or my contributions to society, you have no idea what they consist of - any attempt to speculate otherwise will prove your ignorance.This whole "eat the rich" rhetoric is really tiresome. It's painfully obvious that you want the ivory back scrathcher and envy those who have it, otherwise you would just enjoy the more humble back scratcher you have now instead of bitching against the rich. Why do you think that you're entitled to one of their super cars?