Small Government Book Fan Club discussion

32 views
Non-Book Talk: News and Politics > Leftist Propaganda Machine at Work

Comments Showing 1-16 of 16 (16 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Steve (new)

Steve M. (stevesworld) | 56 comments This misrepresentation of Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand has me all fired up! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobilew...


message 2: by Marina (new)

Marina Fontaine (marina_fontaine) | 1445 comments Mod
Meh. Par for the course for HuffPo, same old propaganda.

I don't mind discussing Rand with people who have actually read her work and have problems (I have some, for sure). But mostly it's knee jerk reactions of so-called intellectuals who are actually as closed-minded as any "religious bigot" they so love to decry.


message 3: by Kodai (new)

Kodai Okuda | 25 comments I concur with Masha,

The left-wing is consistantly pushing lies, deceit, and disinformation through their various media outlets and Huffpo is among the worst.


message 4: by Walter (new)

Walter Foddis | 12 comments I view the "purpose" of these political media articles as typical of any political group: Strengthen the in-group (e.g., liberals/progressives) solidarity and bias by showing how wrong/evil/irrational the out-group (e.g., conservatives & libertarians) is.

But yeah, associating Ryan's budget proposal with Ayn Rand's ideas is absurd to anyone who knows anything substantial about Rand's libertarian politics.


message 5: by Steve (new)

Steve M. (stevesworld) | 56 comments The American Dictator is coming to my town today. My neighbors are happily preparing to lay down their arms, kneel before him and pay tribute.


message 6: by Marina (new)

Marina Fontaine (marina_fontaine) | 1445 comments Mod
They must have heard that NY is now less free than CT, so they got jealous. Perfectly understandable.


message 7: by Marina (new)

Marina Fontaine (marina_fontaine) | 1445 comments Mod
Not this long ago, she would have been laughed out of town. Now? Show on MSNBC.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/08/msn...


message 8: by Steve (new)

Steve M. (stevesworld) | 56 comments Remember when "collective" was a dirty word?


message 9: by Marina (new)

Marina Fontaine (marina_fontaine) | 1445 comments Mod
I guess the Borg are the good guys now. They will have to re-write the old Star Trek stuff.


message 10: by Steve (new)

Steve M. (stevesworld) | 56 comments Funny you should mention Star Trek. I've always considered myself a trekkie but one this has bothered me. The Federation seems a rather collectivist society. They don't use money. Everything they need seems to come for free. How does that work? They look at the Ferengi capitalists as backward and unevolved. Then, the ultimate enemy, the Borg, are a supreme collective with zero individuality. The message is confusing.


message 11: by Marina (new)

Marina Fontaine (marina_fontaine) | 1445 comments Mod
I'll take Firefly over Star Trek any day!

I never was into Star Trek too much, so I don't know all the details. I always assumed the society was so advanced they had unlimited resources and so didn't need money or trade.


message 12: by S.J. (new)

S.J. Lewis (sjlewis) | 263 comments Firefly first.
Babylon 5 second.
Gene Roddenberry originally envisioned 'Star Trek' as set in a future where all things were available in abundance, because, future. There was a soft socialism, implied rather than stated, and Roddenberry never bothered to work out any of the details. Neither did anybody else in any of the succeeding shows. The Ferenghi were cartoon cardboard cutouts to begin with, but one of the most interesting characters on 'Deep Space Nine' turned out to be Quark. 'Deep Space Nine' was the grittiest of the Star Trek shows, and remains my favorite of the bunch. I didn't care for the last season of it, though.


message 13: by Marina (new)

Marina Fontaine (marina_fontaine) | 1445 comments Mod
Actually John C. Wright in his Golden Age trilogy did come up with a society that had access to unlimited energy (I think they were next to a black hole or something, I don't remember) so they had incredible prosperity and no need for money, at least for a time.


message 14: by S.J. (new)

S.J. Lewis (sjlewis) | 263 comments Unlimited energy would only take a society so far. They would still need to grow food, make things, find raw materials to make things out of, and so on and so on.


message 15: by Steve (new)

Steve M. (stevesworld) | 56 comments @S.J. I can see the term "soft socialism" making its way into the American lexicon.


message 16: by S.J. (new)

S.J. Lewis (sjlewis) | 263 comments It's only 'soft' on the outside. Inside it's the same hard, merciless socialism/fascism/communism that slaughtered millions during the 20th Century, all in the name of a greater good that nonetheless never arrived.


back to top