Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But that has nothing to do with gold or FDR. The state of emergency is an artificial war economy that was initiated with National Security Council Memorandum 68, which was signed by Truman.
FDR killed the gold std by making it illegal to own any gold..... he allowed the people to retain wedding rings! he killed the gold std. He was pres for 4 terms too..... first and last ever....
maybe you should go kick your teaches butts after all...
Those folks who have had no electricity for 5 days now, they don't want to hear whining.. about who is going to pay for this?
Ask the lady who is cooking on a tiny sterno in her dark apartment since Monday. No heat or lights.
The guy who is fighting in a 3 hour gas line to put some gas in his car.
Or, the hundreds of folks lined up with gas cans so they can fill their generators.
All whiners should shut the electic off to their houses for one week and get back to us about how you fared with no lights to shave, wipe yourself in the bathroom, (if you even have water), how you cooked with no gas, how you took a shower in the dark.
Help these people if you can, one by one.
Go offer to clean their yards up, instead of complaining...
Where do people get the idea that the government is in the business of rebuilding their homes? My home received major damage from Cat 4 hurricane Hugo in 1989. Serious damage and loss were all around us. Not one person I know got any public money and did not want any. We all had insurance to replace our homes. It is up to the individual to rebuild their homes.
Of course they did, ever heard of subsidized flood insurance?
Therefore, I do not value my money over the lives of people. I do not value money over their lives because I feel that people are more valuable than money.
You're an altruist. You see value in sacrificing yourself for others, yeah? It's your money, but you believe that you gain value by giving it to benefit others?
Quote:
We can get into a huge philosophical discussion about this quote, but it is in essence what most people consider when making decisions. But even with your own ideas regarding not using emotions and desires, you should ask yourself about the first two words in that sentence "I want" right there is a desire, a personal desire mired in a feeling or emotion. Also the last part of the sentence "right." Who is to say whether a decision is ultimately the right one. No one can truly know, so we take a gamble about what we feel in that situation, this is the same with everything.
I'm not interested in getting into a serious discussion either; she's already laid it bare, so I don't think there's reason for us to rediscover the wheel. I'm just curious about your opinion. But to respond to what you're saying here, I'll just say this: I think it's in that essay that she explains the significance of desire, and she defines "right" in another essay: The Objectivist Ethics, by Ayn Rand - The Ayn Rand Institute
I was reading an Ayn Rand essay the other day, and in it she said that the statements people make are admissions. In that sense, your post is an admission that you aren't a sufficiently reasonable person to divorce your emotions from your logical decision making; the evidence of that is your expectation that his opinion would be different if he were the person who could use help, emotional.
Doesn't it bother you that you use emotions to make decisions?
Doesnt bother me in the least, i make many decisions based on emotion,also doesnt bother me that i dont have a clue what point you're trying to make, what ever it is it doesnt sound like it would go far in cleaning up a neighborhood after being ravaged by a hurricane.,i'm betting if your neighborhood gets inundated by some natural disaster your Ayn Rand book wont go far in helping to clean up your neighborhood, might give you something to read while all around is total devastation.
"New York state officials have already started to apply pressure on the federal government to cover a greater share of the rebuilding cost than is provided under the law, seeking 100 percent reimbursement for major infrastructure projects, compared with the 75 percent automatically provided in major disasters. State officials have also talked of an ambitious new sea wall system, with a possible price tag of at least $10 billion, that could protect New York from a future superstorm."
New York Times....
this is exactly why people become unsympathetic-because of all the waste and the greed.
if NY wants a seawall, let the taxpayers of NY vote on whether they want to pay for it or not.
Did you just watch 2001 Space Odyssey as you're coming across as Hal the malfunctioning computer..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
