BREAKING: Twitter Censors Trump Tweet Denouncing Riots

Point to you. Touché. Not bad at all.

 

The Liar in Chief was not censored, What Twitter did was to enhance his Tweets with some truth.

 

the anti-Robin Hood character in "Atlas Shrugged"? Doesn't change my argument

The flaw in your reasoning is that charity cannot deal with the scope of the problem in any organized, cohesive manner, the many millions who need affordable health care, and everyone needs a government, which needs to be funded by a predictable means, and 'voluntary taxes' simply is unrealistic.

I don't need to hate Rand, she proved she was wrong in her later years when it became apparent to her that her income was insufficient to pay her own medical bills, so a social worker convinced her to accept gov assistance.

See, her reason for accepting it is the same reason any one accepts it, it's do or die.

Funny thing, unless you are rich, objectivism can kill you.

 

by, 'edit' I don't mean 'alter' here. I mean accept, reject. Twitter would go out of business is they altered someone's tweet.

 

Well, you know, that's a huge fundamental difference. If they did claim editorial control, they'd be pointless, as you point out.

 

Funny thing, without the rich, there is no middle class.

And isn't voluntary taxes a contradiction in terms, kinda like a loving rapist?

You know, if one makes a superficial reading of Ayn Rand's novels, one can argue she morally justified fraud, adulatory, treason, rape, lying, and murder. But deep down, in the honest part of your soul where the truth lives, you know that is an asinine criticism because obviously what she admired was honesty, morality, life, truth, science, liberty, individualism, America, justice, greatness, romance, happiness, and adventure.

 

And, it would appear that the Secret Service is now in the business of having to correct the lies.

Trump tweeted, Saturday morning, that Muriel Bowser, the mayor of the District of Columbia, "wouldn't let" local police respond to the unrest near the White House.

It was about four hours later when the Secret Service issued a press release saying largely the opposite.

"The Metropolitan Police Department and the U.S. Park Police were on the scene."

Trump then suggested that the Secret Service were anxious to get in on the action. Shortly thereafter, the Secret Service put out their press release:

"Some of the demonstrators were violent, assaulting Secret Service Officers and Special Agents with bricks, rocks, bottles, fireworks, and other items. Multiple Secret Service Uniformed Division Officers and Special Agents sustained injuries from this violence. The Secret Service respects the right to assemble, and we ask that individuals do so peacefully for the safety of all."

 

FDA, EPA, FCC, FTC, SEC ... THE ALPHABET.
I agree, they all empower the bureaucracy and undermine the authority of the courts and our elected Congress.

 

Yes. They ought to be disbanded, if liberty, prosperity, and a life of reason is what you desire.

 

You got that right!,

 

I suppose, but I thought I was using her words. I'll have to double check on that.

Your strawman arguments aside,

One can have convictions, but still be wrong. She understood later in her life, when her medical bills exceeded her income, the practical necessity of receiving government assistance, which is the same reason everyone accepts it. In my view, and the view of many, that makes her a hypocrite.

As for reason, science, she's good, no problem there.

If you believe in a certain way, you must adhere to it, you can't betray it because of convenience. If you change your mind, and you sold millions of books on an anti-welfare philosophy which you no longer accept because you realized that you need welfare to prevent death, you should admit to the world that you were a fraud, or at least a salient aspect of your philosophy was fraud, and I don't think she did that. Oh, for those who put forth the 'restitution' argument, caveat, I have a rebuttal to that, as well.

All those years of pontificating about 'freedom' 'individualism' turned out to be bunk, bunk that sounds nice, but it's like every mass manipulator, they fill your brains with thought terminating clichés and the lemmings will follow them right over the cliff every time.

I find it odd that many on the right, who are religious, follow her, she was an adamant atheist. She also believe a 'human' possessed no rights until it was born. She was also anti-anarchist. so, I'm not entirely disagreeing with her, she, like many libertarians, are about right 50% of the time. And she wasn't a libertarian, either. Her 'objectivism' was limited entirely to her own personal objectivity. She wrote:

From a Playboy interview:

Very much consistent with Bill Maher's view on religion, I'd say.

Still a Rand fan, now?

 

Lying is wrong, but if a thief shows up and asks me where my safe is, I’m going tell him it’s down in the basement (where Galt, my pit bull is) not upstairs in my bedroom (where Kira, my wife, and the safe are)

Ayn Rand argued for life lived with moral principles not existence by dogmatic obedience. That’s the conservative premise.

Identify the straw man argument I’m presenting. That Ayn Rand was an advocate of liberty not a dame of dogmatic subservience?

 

Rand believed that you could have voluntary taxes through charging a fee for making contracts enforceable. I forget what her other methods were, if she had any. Actual practical applications of anything she said were not really her strong suit and this is reflected in her writing; her fiction skills were frankly abysmal, though she was clear, plotted well, and did have some good one liners.

Her works of philosophy were her most interesting. Rand was at her best when she wrote of her aesthetics, her idea of what was beautiful. She believed that mankind was meant to be heroic, that people were at their best when they met their greatest challenges and that our society should reflect that and challenge people greatly even if that meant some would be unable to meet them

 

She spend a good portion of her life eschewing the evils of government assistance, that taxes to fund it were theft, and so forth.
She adhered to that point of view rather dogmatically, until her final years when she had to accept it when it was 'do or die'.

You wrote:
"if one makes a superficial reading of Ayn Rand's novels, one can argue she morally justified fraud, adulatory, treason, rape, lying, and murder."

No, you can't use her 'objectivist' philosophy to justify fraud, adultery, treason, rape, lying, and murder.

Why? There's absolutely nothing objectively good about any of those things. I don't even know why you say it.

"Objectivism" as she dictates is to use your mind objectively, not adhere to blind faith ( which she is calling 'dogma' ).

But, that's what I do, and I don't agree with half of what she says. So, either it's a thing, or it's nothing. What is Ayn Rand's 'philosophy'?

See, tossing my 92 year old mom off of her social security because Ayn said so, is not 'objective', but if you listen to Ayn Rand rant about the government dole, that the taxes to fund her social security are theft, you'd be tossing out objectivity to toss my mom off her assistance.

I hate to say it, but there are holes in her philosophy, big ones. she proved it to herself as she accepted medicare when she had cancer. The 'restitution' argument is a cop out. Either you believe in Social Security and Medicare or you do not. It took a social worker to persuade her to accept medicare, she wasn't going to take it. That's the story I am reading. When she understood that her income couldn't afford the cost of surgery for her cancer, she was persuaded to accept it, against all of her principles. She had to betray her principles in order to avoid death. Funny how the prospect of death changes one's point of view.

However, if she had been honest with herself, she would have thought her philosophy through because she could have come to that realization long before she was facing the consequences of cancer to come to that realization, as I, and all progressives I know, have. We don't need to face death in order to understand that universal health care is a good thing, and that taxes to fund it are just, because we believe that is one of the prices individuals must pay to live in a civilized society.

I'm all for freedom, but, as a society, there are limits. As to what those should be, it's up to voters, wrong or right.

 

You are wrong about everything concerning Ayn Rand and Objectivism. If you wish to be enlightened, or are confident you can enlighten me, go here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness.556951/

And repost your post there.

Whatever you choose, this much is true, the wannabe tyrant Trump has no moral authority to force others to think, live, and do as he pleases, including the private enterprise, Twitter. And if he gets that power, start the revolution and reinstall "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

 

I doubt all do.
In fact, many politicians go out of there way to not offend anybody. That's why they never give a straight answer to a question.

 

How do you claim it to be yours in the 1st place?

An employer offers you $10/hr. Everyone know there's FICA, state and fed income taxes.
You are only really being offered $7.50/hr take home.
One needs to factor that in, before making a decision.
That other $2.50 was never yours and you've never received it directly. But you do benefit from that with all that the gov'ts provide to the nation, state, county, city.

 

Well, on Trump, we are on the same page. He's a wannabe Tyrant.

 

I can't think of a single politician that didn't go negative. I would be surprised if there was one.

 

During a campaign against their rival.
But in general, the don't do group attacks. IMO. It could be political suicide to do so.

 

And you agree that government shouldn't be able to interfere with private enterprises?

 

In our system the government is empowered to reasonably regulate commerce.

JACK DORSEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS PROMOTION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM: Antifa’s Call to Violence Gets Free Rein on Twitter While Trump is Censored.