This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
More Facts About The Tea-Party's "Goliath-Slayer" David Brat
Slowly but surely, more is being revealed about Eric Cantor's unknown until now (so unknown that his Wikipedia entry was only two sentences before Tuesday night) nemesis, the anti-big business, anti-Wall Street, anti establishment "Goliath-slayer" David Brat. In addition to our profile from this morning, here is the latest compilation of biographical factoids about the suddenly uber-famous tea party activist, who has written about the role of religion in economic growth. He is also a fan of the pro-capitalist novelist Ayn Rand. Here are some facts about Brat from Reuters.
ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS PROFESSOR WITH DIVINITY DEGREE
Brat, 49, is an economics professor at 1,300-student Randolph-Macon College outside Richmond, Virginia. He describes himself as a budget expert on his campaign website, saying he "presents a major problem for liberals who try to continue increased government spending by discrediting conservatives." In May, Brat reportedly missed planned meetings with national conservative leaders because he had to prepare for final exams. He graduated from Hope College in Michigan in 1986 with a degree in business administration, received a Master's in divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary and a PhD in economics from American University.
FAN OF AYN RAND
Brat teaches a class on Rand's thinking underwritten by Rand admirer and former banking chief executive John Allison, who is promoting the class to counter what he sees as anti-capitalist thinking at U.S. institutions. The program, known as "The Moral Foundations of Capitalism," is intended to further the ideas Rand outlined in her novel, "Atlas Shrugged." Brat has reportedly said he is not a "Randian" but appreciates the case she makes for freedom and free markets.
ARGUED RELIGION PLAYS ROLE IN ECONOMIC GROWTH RATES
Brat has in published work found fault with a 2001 paper by Ben Bernanke, who would later become chairman of the Federal Reserve, that said long-term growth was mostly determined by variables such as saving rates, population growth and levels of education. Brat said that Bernanke had overlooked the role of Protestantism, which he said created conditions conducive to strong economic performance.
OPPONENT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM
In campaign ads, Brat accused the majority leader of "giving citizenship papers to illegal immigrants." The immigration issue helped Brat win endorsements from notable conservatives such as Ann Coulter, who called Cantor "amnesty-addled" in a column for right-wing news site Townhall.com. Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham also campaigned for Brat in Virginia and slammed Cantor on immigration.
FACE-OFF AGAINST FELLOW FACULTY MEMBER
Brat's Democratic challenger in the November election will be Jack Trammell, a Randolph-Macon assistant professor and director of disability support services who has written books about the slave trade and his family's life on a small farm in rural Virginia.
WAS CRITICIZED BY CANTOR FOR BEING A LIBERAL
Cantor initially dismissed Brat as "a liberal economics professor" who was pretending to be a conservative. Cantor's attack was widely reported, bringing a bonanza of publicity to Brat.
* * *
Further on Brat from The Hill
Dave Brat, suddenly among the most famous House nominees in the country, has preached an economic policy message rooted in capitalism and Christ, fearing in his writings that a weak society could produce the next Hitler, or that one party could try to monopolize morality.
“If markets are bad, which they are, that means people are bad, which they are. Want good markets? Change the people. If there are not nervous twitches in the pews when we preach, then we are not doing our jobs,” Brat wrote in a 13-page 2011 paper published in Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. “If we all spread the word, we would not need the government to backstop every action we take.”
“I have the sinking feeling that it could all happen again, quite easily,” he wrote.
Brat, a Randolph-Macon economics professor, stunned the political world on Tuesday night when he defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) in a Republican primary, a feat Brat described as a "miracle" on Fox News.
Now Brat, lauded by the Tea Party following his victory, is thrust into the national political spotlight, and his economic papers are being sifted through for clues about how he would govern.
"The government holds a monopoly on violence. Any law that we vote for is ultimately backed by the full force of our government and military. Do we trust institutions of the government to ensure justice?” Brat wrote in 2011. “Do you trust that power to the political Right? Do you trust it to the Left? If you answered 'no' to either question, you may have a major problem in the future.”
Brat received a doctorate in economics from American University and a master's divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary.
He now faces Democratic challenger Jack Trammell, another professor at Randolph-Macon in Ashland, in the battle for Virginia's 7th District.
Brat's remarks on Fox News following his primary victory echoed another passage he wrote in the 2011 paper.
“God asked the people of Israel: Are you sure you want a king? That is a good question to ask at this time,” Brat wrote in 2011. “The church needs to regain its voice and offer up a coherent social vision of justice and rationality. Soon. The Bible and then Calvin is a good start. Rule of Law is in the middle. Capitalism will be in the final chapters.”
In the same paper, he framed the current political landscape as one where Republicans “enforce morality” and Democrats “coerce others” to fund social programs.
“Can Christians force others to follow their ethical teachings on social issues? Note that consistency is lacking on all sides of this issue. The political Right likes to champion individual rights and individual liberty, but it has also worked to enforce morality in relation to abortion, gambling, and homosexuality,” Brat wrote.
“The Left likes to think of itself as the bulwark of progressive liberal individualism, and yet it seeks to progressively coerce others to fund every social program under the sun via majority rule. Houston, we have a problem. Coercion is on the rise.”
Brat praised institutions as a force of economic good, particularly religious institutions, according to a 2004 paper he authored that was published in the Virginia Economic Journal.
“Institutions such as religion, democracy and government anti-diversion policies all significantly enhance a country's long-run economic performance,” Brat wrote in 2004. “The religion variable may be the strongest ex ante, exogenous institutional variable in the literature.”
Brat wrote that “a real test for liberal Christian types is whether they will reach out to capitalists.”
“If we are ever going to be transformers of culture, we need to get our story straight on capitalism and faith,” Brat wrote in 2011. "The two can go together and they had better go together, or we will not transform anything.”
»
- 23304 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Religion and Ayn....
Very strange bedfellows indeed...
They didn't take him serious before. Now it's just a matter of time before they find some sort of illegal porn or something sent from one of his emails.
I'm still waiting to find out how many Diebold employees were fired after Cantor was beaten.
They neglected to mention his strongest point: never in Congress before.
I think they should all be limited to 2 terms. If you go for a third, they 'Logan's Run' your ass.
As long as he's not a gh0at-slayer, gh0atrider will vote for the Brat.
Blankfein is upset, so I'm happy. Was hilarious this morning to hear Mini-Me Blankfein state how concerned he was over a democratic voting process. Of course, anyone into stealing from the people would be "concerned" if the people choose to end the gravy train.
Stubby scum banker. Get a real job Blankfart. Go make something, go produce something, instead of skimming off of every transaction and getting gov't handouts, you loser.
nope-1004 - my sentiment exactly. if lloyd is pissy - something is a-missy. they don't own this guy. yet.
he will probably end up dead. his principals may not be my principals, but he may have some. he may stick to them. then he gets dead.
all of you guys saying - 'well he's only a nothing at such and such university' - it might be a plus. it might mean he didn't want to be a world beater and was content with his life. until - things got to the point that he felt it necessary to do something.
obama was the same thing :) - he was never anything - (well - he was a community organizer) - and then suddenly - he was everything.
so - we will have to wait and see.
bottom line is - i hear lots of talk about how 'we' (i include myself) are going to do this and that, but he's making a move, not arm chair quarterback. i hope it works out for everybody.
Can Christians force others to follow their ethical teachings on social issues? Note that consistency is lacking on all sides of this issue. The political Right likes to champion individual rights and individual liberty, but it has also worked to enforce morality in relation to abortion, gambling, and homosexuality,” Brat wrote. “The Left likes to think of itself as the bulwark of progressive liberal individualism, and yet it seeks to progressively coerce others to fund every social program under the sun via majority rule. Houston, we have a problem. Coercion is on the rise.
I don't know much about this guy, but I sure like to hear someone who believes that.
For crying out loud guys, why do you keep blaming Lloyd Blankfein of all people? I think Lloyd has been a good sport through all this.
And yeah, about homosexuality, in and of itself (while really gross and certainly sinful and inrinsically disordered) it is not a problem per se (as in keep it to yourselves fags you don't bother us we won't complain about what you do between your four walls), Gay Marriage will most certainly have a negative effect on society as a while and should not be sanctioned by the state. If it is, the state is saying that barren intrinsically disordered relations deserve the same sanctity as fruitful traditional relations and there will be negative repurcussions.
For one, the ACLU and Eric Holders DOJ are foaming at the mouth to declare christianity a hate group.
For two, the public school system will teach children they are equivelant beginning at Kindergarten and that will cause children to question if they too were born that way, a major distraction from their growth as productive members of society. Because it is garbage doctrine and not conducive to household formation or birth rates, or christianity, or sanity for that matter. Christian children in public schools bringing home their coloring (crayons) of two men holding hands and complaining about everything with thought bubbles emphasizing a lisp are not going up on christian refrigerators. This will signal the end of public schools for those with the means to do otherwise. While many of you are applauding this, public schools, those not unionized by the communist party, ok southern public schools, still serve a purpose. This has the potential for major social upheaval, and seeing as it is at its core garbage doctrine it should be abandoned.
For three, people in california will not know which type of clothing to buy for their children, as they will be unable to determine their sex, even at birth, and this will quickly spread to Seattle.
For four, Just fucking stop with the gay marriage already for crying out loud it is bull and you all know it. Stop using disorder in society to create social movements and garner votes for collectivism. Geez.
Just stop the bull.
For the extremely headstrong who will still say this is a great idea, lets hire some consultants (maybe use the next round of money that was going to go to studying duck penises) to do an exaustive study of all the knock on effects, you know the effects not driven by all this pent up emotion that has been egged on by the idiot liberals who are destroying our country, and see just what all we enjoy that stands to be ruined by this stupid idea.
For the record Lloyd is on the record saying he has real doubts about this whole liberal social thing, but in his words, "We will see where it gets us" (pull the tape from CNBS if you don't believe me)
PS You guys seem to have a man crush on Lloyd.
Brat is right on, you can't have a free society without morality.
And what is morality?
"Eat it...eat it raw...that's the spirit we have here...raw...raw..."
You know...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Not in fashion these days I guess, but what we need to save human freedom.
No...I did not know what you meant....which was my point...oh well..too abstract and subtle...
Who's morality?
Most everyone thinks their particular moral mix is the correct one and are willing to kill to prove it. That is a strong indication that their perceived morality is totally wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt
Moral Foundations Theory
In 2004, Haidt began to extend the Social Intuitionist Model to specify the most important categories of moral intuition. The result was Moral Foundations Theory, co-developed with Craig Joseph and Jesse Graham, and based in part on the writings of Richard Shweder. The theory posits that there are (at least) six innate moral foundations, upon which cultures develop their various moralities, just as there are five innate taste receptors on the tongue, which cultures have used to create many different cuisines. The six are Care/harm, Fairness/cheating, Liberty/oppression, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation. The theory was developed to explain cross-cultural differences in morality, but Haidt and his collaborators at YourMorals.org have found that the theory works well to explain political differences as well. Liberals (leftists) tend to endorse primarily the Care, Fairness, and Liberty foundations, whereas conservatives (rightists) tend to endorse all six foundations more equally.
Wiki fails to mention that libertarians emphasize liberty above the other moral foundations.
Morality does not mean religion although many people believe it does.
You don't need religion to have morality...morality is inate...you watch my back when I take a drink at the watering hole, and I'll watch your back when it's your turn.
Yes.... but inate in that evolution has selected on that basis...
However, there are always 3-5% of the population that ruin it by not following the script...
More often than not, morality is used to control people, which is why politicians always seek to convince people they have the moral high ground. If you can make a moral rule and then make a handy exception for yourself, you've untouchable.
If this guy manages to singlehandedly bring the debt ceiling debate back and gridlock everything and the U.S is forced to default on it's debt and the dollar collapses and interest rates blow sky high and martial law is declared and everyone ends up in the street hallucinating and throwing grapes at each other while screaming in other languages I will tip my hat to this man.
Obama put us all on that same outcome or glide path when he chose Yellen as the Fed chair.
Or simply "Virginia for Virginians."
There is nothing in this article that says anything other than "the debt Ponzi can be saved."
Already "we have a bull market here! Start buying!"
How much longer until the talking points folks say "hey, these talking points aren't working"?
This country would very slowly return to a diluted form of greatness if all politicians became aware of the approaching, unstoppable, acrid smell of electoral defeat (tough I know, but thought provoking). Complete greatness would be achieved if all .gov were under a mandate of term limits. Start in the millionaire's club ( the senate )
Hey Tyler! More "facts?" From whom? Have you interviewed this person yet? Have you gotten a gut feel for this person and are transmitting your own personal impressions? Oh! This is stuff from "The Hill?" That's important to know, and I'm glad that you clearly stated so.
Let's see how events unfold.
"Dave Brat on capitalism, Christ and Hitler"
That's the headline on "The Hill."
Christ and Hitler! Why don't we include his views on the Crusades and mention the fact that he once admired Genghis Khan for governmental efficiency?
Genghis was very efficient!
He made the horses run on time.
I just hope this starts a movement to remove all the scumbags that got bought off by Goldman and the like.
One term is more than long enough. It should feel like service not a paid employment opportunity.
Elected persons should not be getting paid for their positions, it should be a privilege if it's going to be anything.
If they got NO pay, you would only have rich people who could afford years/a year without pay.
It should pay the US median household income with no tax breaks, no lifetime anything, and no benefits.
I guess voting counts. The Repubs, Rinos' and all, won a landslide in 2010 because of the peoples opposition to Obamacare. Now the Teaparty is targeting the Rino's and will take them out one by one.
Voting is a one-bit system.
How much information can you convey with one bit?
Just a thought.
True-false, yes-no, live-die are good for a start...
I'm still waiting to find out how many Diebold employees were fired after Cantor was beaten.
This!
How could they not take him seriously? He has straight teeth and politician hair.
Religion and Ayn Rand. Sounds like he needs a healthy dose of Thorazine.
Because he doesn't agree with you?
I find some reasoning of you guys rather dubious...
Rubicon,
So, let me get this straight:
If he relies solely on religion; he's okay.
If he relies solely on secular humansim; he's okay.
But if he borrows positive concepts from both; he's a psychotic schizophrenic?
Anyone who believes an invisible man in the sky gives them the right to impose their will on others is, for me, seriously scary.
Never leads to anything good.
Read the Old Testament for some real horror stories.
I wasn't aware we lived in a theocracy.
But if we're gonna go that route, I want Gaia (aka Mother Nature) banned from any mention in public schools.
Its mixing state & religion in something taxpayer funded. And I want ideology banned from public schools so young, impressionable minds aren't corrupted by dreams of an all powerful state, again, paid for with our tax dollars.
Lets see how this plays out ;-)
Look at the number of US politicians that use the Bible for their own ends.
Not a theocracy..... Yet.
Religion is what built this country. Atheism, loss of morality, is what is destroying it. It's as clear as day when you look.
So you wouldn't want an absolute rule that says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?"
You dont have to listen to "the invisble man in the sky", you are given that choice.
But wouldn't it be a be a better world if all of us did listen to that rule?
I guess that's the real choice between Satan and God.
Quote:
So you wouldn't want an absolute rule that says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
That's the only rule required.
That's what I was getting at.
I guess I wasn't clear enough.
Yes, but it if it was only up to you to decide.
But you must ask God, Did I do enough? Did I help my fellow humans?
To rest your soul, you must do all you could to free the human spirit.
Did you?
The rule is useless if you can do things to others and they can't reciprocate.
Do-good weasel words like that bother me.
Cantor 5 million dollars and 23 staffers. Brat 100k and two staffers...and wins.
Now thats a fiscal conservative ;-)
whoa! what the fuck!
if you got the cash to spend on cantor, you be a winner and a superman (as defined by the winner-take-all ayn).
now you want me to believe brat, a littleman, the winner, is an anti-ayn rand supermench?
whoa? what the fuck!
You've never read any of Rand's work have you?
brat, a tea party littleman, is now an ayn rand supermensch.
brilliant, stupid, and crazy...all at the same time...
nedstyles....did i miss anything?
Supermensch is not a word. You missed that, and the fact that Rand wasn't an existentialist either.
thanks for the incoherent reply.
supermensch is a play on ubermensch (superman, for the comic strip crowd).
ayn rand is a silly bitch. anybody who defends her ideology is a............
please. do not embarrass the zhedge crowd.
What was her ideology again?
//////
Patiently tapped my finger long enough, seems like you should know. Wasn't it about self interest, reason, reality & capitalism?
1) The Fabian Socialists like to paint her self interest as greed though don't they? And by what mechanism do they propose to correct this "greed"? The state, a central government. But isn't that proving her point correct? The self interest of the state and the greed of those in promoting the theft of what is not theirs.
2) Then reason, isn't it reasonable to expect to be left alone? To not have to jump through a myriad of bureaucratic hoops just to make a living? Did we not discover today that taxi cab drivers in europe have to pay 200k for a friggin license, does anyone find that "reasonable"?
"Protestors want stricter rules for Uber, which currently does not require its drivers to carry a unique license, which can cost up to €200,000 ($270,780/£161,160), Bloomberg said."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2459302,00.asp
3) Now reality...thats having to pay "the king" 200k for a piece of paper or be fined through the nose and have your property confiscated.
4) I cannot find free enterprise capitalism in any of the above. I find, envy, graft and theft sanctioned by government and the greedy little bastards who enable it.
Nicely put.
There's no straight-forward exchange - always a non-productive parasite in the middle demanding a cut - because 'the law says it's OK'
Yes, that "law" thingy again ;-)
Politicians, bureaucrats and of course, lawyers, want it involved in every interaction we make with each other...it provides them work.
Your reading comprehension is horrible if that was "incoherent" for you.
No, what you did was make up a word and thought you were clever for it.
Who said anything about defending anyone, if her ideology is valid it will stand the test of time as all valid philosophies tend to. Me pointing out your errors is hardly me defending anything, and it's sad that you are so basal to think that. Whom ever you paid for your education was getting a great deal as they obviously didn't put much work into it.
Excuse me? You've been 8 weeks and are telling me that I am embarassing the ZH crowd. That is cute, real cute. You aren't even part of ZH yet. Come back when you've been here more than a year.
I think you'll find it's not so 'cut & dried' if you do a little research.
This guy has some interesting 'associates' - Brat, I mean.
We all know and 'love' Cantor's associates.
>> Religion and Ayn.
I don't have a problem with either, just keep them out of my government and my life.
Like so many of these guys, with him we get BOTH! It's a twofer.
Just keep government out of my life. Completely. Forever.
So there are at least two people on ZH who are avowed statists. I am Jack's supreme sense of disappointment.
Sure, when I roll up with the boys to take your stuff, don't call the police, coz they is the government.
(re)
>> don't call the police,
Not taking any sides here, but for me, I never, ever, call the police. Police are just adding to the problem. You roll up with the boys to take my stuff and one of us, or both, is going to need an ambulance. The problem will be solved before the police ever show up to write their report.
Congratulations, you just discovered how the absence of a central authority creates feudalism. The problem isn't "solved" in your scenario above. If you plan to defend with a rifle, I will bring a mortar. If you escape and get your hands on a mortar, I will defend with a tank. We each will build bigger armaments and armies to defend or steal our stuff from or back from one another.
The problem with Randism is that there is no market solution for death. It's final. If we were all immortal, voluntarism would work great. But violence is a low effort substitute for actual work, so there will always be a segment of the population that chooses that path to get "Stuff".
I can't believe this guy isn't smart enough to know his religious god doesn't exist.
Just kidding, I can, he is voluntarily serving in government after all.
God doesn't exist guys, get over it.
Prayer & belief works for a whole lot of people, don't ignore that. It could be that is because there is God in Heaven ... or perhaps because belief causes our unconsciousness to awaken, which drives us to our goals. One can even see all religion, prayer, ritual, sacrifice as elements that connect to the 'God' inside our heads. Maybe one should try seeing God as a synonym for the power within our minds, a simple way of describing a complex system inside our brains. In the end, it can be used to help you achieve your goals.
So what do you worship? Science? Atheism? B.L. Zeebub? Stawk Markets? Don't say "nothing" because nobody's buying that.
Why the fuck would anyone sorship ANYTHING.
Totally sumb ides, unless you are one of 'priests' - Then it's a powerful tool of control.
Think, please.
You know I believe you speak the truth. Your god is dead. There are those who know the living God. It is too bad your ego has blocked Him out of your life.
prove it... I got to it first, the ball's in your court.
said it before, saying it again... the 2014 elections are more important than 2016... if this isn't proof I don't know what is
Anyone with an idol is practicing a religion. In other words, there is a lot more religion than people admit. I have to question how ayn could sit alongside Almighty God.
That was my first thought as well. But when you're mentally disturbed, it all works out.
And an endorsement from Ann Coulter....
What is there not to dislike....
He's going to save us all. He's so smart that he's able to figure out that one can separate Ayn's religion of self-interest from his advanced degree in Godliness. I hope the Wikipedia article, when they expand it, includes a section on cognitive dissonance.
God?
Ayn Rand?
Does not compute.
As Nmewn would probably say, he didn't really read the Book.
Maybe he didn't just read those two books.
Maybe he understood them, thought about them, contrasted and commingled the messages and metaphors...
Get a clue: the whole American ideal of Liberty and self-actualization is rooted in Christian free will and morality.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin
"...if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.... the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind." [Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged]
Perhaps Brat should see an electrician.
To be fair I have seen you guys post some of the same contradictions. A statist is always going to have those contradictions.
True believers always have an excuse when their true belief is exposed to be a pack of contradictions.
Only a simpleton would deny that life is rife with contradictions.
Go ahead, LTER; -tell Me you live in a world of absolutes and have never wavered, never been tested, never felt confusion or that life was pulling you in opposing directions; -that you have never found yourself wondering exactly what the right thing to do was...
I make mistakes all the time. When I realize that one of my beliefs is full of contradictions, I reexamine it. I don't double down and say "so life is full of contradictions."
Are you sure you aren't doubling down right now? Remember: you make mistakes ALL the time!
Personally, I'm Catholic, and I manage an abortion clinic.
Contradiction?
No - a synthesis of divine teaching and my unshakable faith in the primacy of human free-will.
I'm also a follower of Linda Evans.
No, you'd just be someone who believes in the existence of a paradoxical deity and at the same time you'd also be a murderer.
Ahhh - but you left out Linda Evans.
Paradox is the door, Linda Evans is the key...
Brilliant.
J. R. "Bob" Dobbs would encourage you to grant slack.
I mean, really - what else can you do?
Personally, I'm Catholic, and I manage an abortion clinic.
You've got to be joking.
Really? Then WHY HAVEN'T YOU CHANGED YOUR NAME YET? Having such a username cements the opinion you had when you registered, and will always and in every aspect of your life dominate your thinking. You literally CAN'T abandon your hate of Rand, even if presented with an argument that should make you change your mind, because you have based your entire self on hatered for her. If she says the sky is blue, you are FORCED to disagree by that ingrained hatred that is continually reinforced by your user name.
Why do you allow yourself to be ruled by human biases? You know that there is no God, so why do you think the human mind, ANY human mind, is perfect? Why do you allow human bias to rule your action, like a savage in the wilderness? You can be better. You can become less wrong.
If mocking L Ron Hubbard is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Wait - who are we talking about?
edit: Sing it, Luther!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9BA6fFGMjI
Bad. Ass.
Instead of fighting, can't we all just trade links to soul music?
En Garde !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t08ejaQqWjY
Could it be and i'm wrong, LTER; -that in a sheep hive mind where the mob/herd mentality answers all questions with unthinking efficiency, You follow wherever the flow goes even if it is over the cliff or to the scene of the terrible crime yet to be committed?
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what I believe in, because so far all I see are more Ad-Homs and a bunch of beating about the bush.
$100 says you're a closet fascist that would be delighted to take a baton to one of us.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what I believe in
I sense a trap.
Actually - who gives a shit what you believe in?
I belive I will have another drink....
Obviously he does because he keeps bringing it up.
So you can go play with yourself in the corner for thinking your hipster ironic commentary was going anywhere except to make you look like a pretentious douchebag.
Give it a rest, FFS.
You're starting to look desperate.
Desperate for some of you to quit being so intellectually dead, yes.
Give it a rest, FFS.
DO WHAT I TELL YOU!!
If you don't like my posts in this thread, feel free to leave the thread. You can also opt for not reading them, or leaving the site. So you have options of your own.
Are you the guy who thought building the pyramids was good for the common man in Egypt?
What in hell are you talking about?
Who are you even?
Faith as in faith in free individual choice?
Faith in One's ability to decide for themself as opposed to blind faith in whatever the mob/herd seems to rush towards?
Faith in the power of retaining the fruits of one's labour as the only valid incentive to peaceful productivity and voluntary contracts and wealth creation -as opposed to sloth and violence and wealth confiscation?
And this is compatible or incompatible with admonishons not to covet thy neighbors goods and wife?
I'm an electrician, LTER. -I'll speak with him on your behalf...
It is a fallacy to think that believer's lack knowledge. Explain the Apostle Paul and CS Lewis to name just a couple. Biblical knowledge and faith are highly complementary.
True thought and truth recognizes that the world in which we live is not a product of matter, time and chance.
sschu
Objective truth requires an objective truth teller. Man cannot be the source of this truth and morality. Man can only be certain of morality as provided by God. The Word provides us this morality.
sschu
Objective truth.
Now there's a concept.
Name me a single objective person.
Name me a single inarguable truth.
No one can tell you the truth, you can only seek it for yourself, and even then you have to be open to the idea that you might be barking up the wrong tree.
The important part is the seeking.
Single inarguable truth.
Gravity or speed of light in a vacuum.
The post modern view that there are no absolute truths is self contradictory.
God provides the only absolute truth.
Sschu
Damn, walk away to cut up some watermelon and Rand presumes to speak for me.
You a mind reader now?
I thought the guy was just obsessed with clean water and fresh air.
Wow. You fucked him up pretty badly, too...
I'm not so sure Rands a guy. It likes to dance around gender and never stated openly to me it was (that I remember) but it enjoys bashing males for some reason.
A very odd persona ;-)
Wait...
Are You implying that LTER is actually a watermellon?
;-)
Green with envy on the outside and as red as hell in the middle...lol.
Agreed. Any Rand was an atheist.
I am sure he is a nice guy and I am glad he won. Based on what I read here he is essentially praying for organic growth. Welcome to the club. So far, not so good.
No one nice becomes a politician. Ever.
Dr. Ronald Paul? But in reality he wasn't a politican.
I am awash in a sea of your tears. The hearty lols produced by your butthurt, if harvested, could provide of all of mankinds energy needs for decades, if not centuries.
I cannot believe that a majority downvoted. I don't agree with your politics but you are absolutely right about Ayn. Worship the self above all else at any cost. "Capitalism" is the gateway to self glorification and people benefit from this self glorification like magic! Sure! Complete narcissism and materialism is the exact opposite of Christ. Murderering the defenseless or innocent is fine with narcissists. Brat says he's against abortion but then implies it is wrong to enforce morality on others against their individual liberty including with abortion. Sorry kid, you were predestined to die and go to hell. God picks winners and losers and I'm a winner and you're a loser. Tough break, now watch me hit this golf ball.
This guy will be just another politician in about 2 months. If nothing else, it will reinforce that there is no political solution and American democracy is pure theatre.
Ann Coulter should keep his "Demonic" pie hole shut.
He also has the strength of ten men.
Chuck Norris wears David Brat pajamas.
In his dreams.
ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS PROFESSOR WITH DIVINITY DEGREE
And I thought they were the same...divinity and economics...sure as hell ain't science...
ummm... no you pretty much nailed it man.
The Right Cheek is Economics.
The Left Cheek is Religion.
Together, they meet in The Great Divide with The Great Unifier in the middle of course.
I think you're confusing divinity with divination.
Yes, economics and divination are indeed the same thing...
not really dear fellow.
my point is that The Divide between politics/economics and religion is slim to nonexistent, depending on the weight of the person with The Divide, of course.
...divination being a whole different and completely unrelated subject.
Indeed some have said that "the only thing crueler than Politics is Religion"
Religion:(gr threskia) - "to be more concerned with the outward appearances of the flesh than the inward matters of the heart."
Fuck you Cantor - Zionist traitor piece of shit...grandstanding/bitching about giving the Palestinians some pocket change while Israel get billions every year... good riddance you fuck
Many here on the Zhedge must be apoplectic over this establishment slayer.
LTER must be huddled in a corner babbling something about his two most hated subjects, religion and Rand.
I'm always amazed at how those that preach tolerance are often the most intolerant.
DaddyO
Yet, we are the ones that are supposedly simple and delusional.
If only they were capable of externalizing and seeing themselves how we see them.
You guys crack me up.
"Playboy: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?
Ayn Rand: Qua religion, no - in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith." [Playboy interview with Ayn Rand]
Religion and Ayn Rand are the proverbial oil and water, and mos of you have no idea how ridiculous you sound to someone who is not indoctrinated in your contradictory faith.
No the main issue I see is that you are still confusing OBJECTIVISM with LIBERTARIANISM.
Then you try to group a bunch of indicviduals as if they all held the same exact thoughts and opinions. Sorry, the world is not that black and white LTER.
Most libertarians can see the differences and how we all have something to bring to the table in a peaceful fashion without having to be collectivized and regulated into groups because some guy on the internet thinks we should be. Go coerce in traffic and see how quaintly those people care about you trying to categorize their lives by what car they are driving.
<-Religion and Ayn Rand are the proverbial oil and water, and mos of you have no idea how ridiculous you sound to someone who is not indoctrinated in your contradictory faith.->
Just another conclusion you have drawn from what? post I wrote on my faith or lack thereof...
It's this type of jumping to conclusions that makes me scratch my head in wonder as to where you got any inkling of my religious beliefs and political views regarding libertarinanism.
If I had to put a label on myself it would not be libertarian, more likely Constitutional Conservative with a couple of libertarian beliefs thrown in for fun.
Quit with the conclusion jumping already LTER and you might lose the douche label.
DaddyO
"Quit with the conclusion jumping already LTER and you might lose the douche label."
Poor ole LTER, stuck with a Rand tatoo for the rest of its obsessive ZH life...lol.
Now there was a thought who's time came & went ;-)
People wonder why I stick with the same handles everywhere I go. It's because they are neutral. Nid Styles was the main character of a comic I was trying to get published when in high school. It never went anywhere, so I just kept the name around.
I've kept my name going back ten years or more now and use it everywhere posting/commenting on-line.
Mine came from my own introspection but I found over the years its whatever someone else wants to attach to it. It means enemy within, each letter denoting a sound.
The avatar is a reclamation project of sorts, from those who (it seems at times) will never understand what V stood for and against. He was not for freeeeee! government shit...he was against, theft & tyranny.
Here's a guy doing God's work......wait..where have I heard that before.
In the bible?
Cantor's gone...that's all that matters right now!
Where does he stand on birth control for homosexuals?
Whose side is he on regarding Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Narnia?
Apple or Samsung?
I would have thought the perfect birth control for homosexuals is letting them remain homosexual...that, or he could try exorcism or beating them with a strap until they repent. ohhhh, pain, what are his views on pain?
And so far he hasn't come out for the stoning to death of gays like his fellow Tea Party libertarian Scott Esk from Oklahoma.
Mind you, Esk has conceeded that stoning human being to death might go against some aspects of libertarianism. " I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss", he said.
But gays and other so-called deviants can rest easy that Esk won't himself be throwing the first stones: "I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it".
You can tell the real Libertarians from the fake ones. One advocates violence, the other only advocates non-aggression.
This concept is amazingly difficult to understand for some of you, I understand that. I am patient and willing to discuss this further.
What...did you run out of Scott Esk articles to post on?
Stay on topic and at least understand the difference between the foundations of a philosophy and when someone uses it as a self label for a wide range of alterior motives. Just saying...he can't be ok with violating the most central tenent of a philosophy and still actually be an adherant of that philosophy. He can't be ok with anyone killing someone else for being gay and be a libertarian.