Comment: And?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Fact is (see in situ)


It seems as of the author of the article gets the point.

That said, in an earlier post I drew somewhat of a distinction between socialist security and the other govt freebies being discussed, such as energy assistance, food stamps, housing assistance, etc...

I do not support socialist security or condone those who use it, but that particular govt program is a direct taking for a direct benefit, so it has been set aside by me from my general discussion due to it being somewhat more complex.

A mini-rant, not directed at you...

That said, who cares what Ayn Rand or Ron Paul did?

I am thoroughly sick of having what Ron Paul said, did or would say or do, thrown up as if a shield or some impenetrable barrier from being wrong.

If Ron Paul humped a sheep or a child, would that somehow be a defense or a valid excuse, rationalization or justification for doing so?

Of course not, so why even go there?

Oh, wait, I forgot that this tactic is used frequently around here to rationalize things that would otherwise be seen as questionable or flat-wrong.

Mini-rant off...

The principle is simple, the government excess is clear, the acceptance of any of it by someone does not change that, it merely shows where certain people fail to walk the talk.

It really is as simple as that.

The issue comes into play when rationalization & justification are required as cover and then the action requires a lengthy dissertation and/or some lofty, professorial treatise to make it seem okay.