gdp's Comments

RobertRinger.com : Does Trump Deserve to Lose Your Vote?

Wed, 31 Aug 2016 02:19:28 +0000

All the more reason to sew the seeds of anarchy. I have no interest in defeating any state, including this one. I am content to allow the ghetto dwellers to arrange their own affairs to their liking in their Metropolises, if they would just leave us the hell alone out here in Flyover Country. Anarchy would be infinitely less bloody in the heartland, than revolution or civil war (same thing), which we rednecks would win decisively in any case, if they pushed it. A few strategically placed trucks with 18 flat tires, combined with the traffic jam they caused, could instantly seal off highway access to the cities. When, they could no longer get daily food deliveries, their grocery stores would be empty withing three days. I sure wouldn't want to be anywhere near them, when they got hungry. ;-) ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Does Trump Deserve to Lose Your Vote?

Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:33:05 +0000

Even two would be a vast improvement over the Incumbrepublocrat UniParty duopoly; but the more the merrier. I like the way European parliamentary systems, generally require politicians to cobble together a tenuous governing coalition, AFTER an election rather than before. This seems infinitely preferable to the machinations ours go through, trying to keep their disparate factions stuck to their base, while trying to woo a few independents for a win. Then, if the majority in a European coalition tries to run roughshod over their minority partners, they can force another election right away, by withdrawing from the coalition. Once our sheeple have been tricked into electing a particular bunch of liars, they are then stuck with them until the next scheduled election, no matter how onerous they turn out to be. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Does Trump Deserve to Lose Your Vote?

Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:15:08 +0000

I agree with Jim regarding relative writing styles; but it happens that I read Mises' "Theory of Money and Credit," before even reading Ayn Rand, much less Rothbard, Browne, or any other libertarian author besides Robert Ringer. He really opened my eyes as a young entrepreneur, into the true nature of Money, and thus prepared my mind to absorb its research into libertarian thinking soon to follow. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Does Trump Deserve to Lose Your Vote?

Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:47:49 +0000

I don't disagree, RS, and reckon that such a scenario is more than likely, no matter who is POTUS at that time. The question is, which would be more likely to respond by declaring martial law, opening the FEMA camps, confiscating arms, and filling mass graves with contumacious "troublemakers?" I would welcome such a split. I have almost nothing in common with the Progressive fools living in the Metropolitan rabbit warrens, and fail to see why I should be required to feed them, or suffer under the tyranny of their carelessly chosen nanny state. Outright anarchy among the common country folk in Flyover America, would be far preferable. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Does Trump Deserve to Lose Your Vote?

Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:53:27 +0000

Agreed, Jim. Those are two great quotes. I have been using a version of that quip for years, without realizing that Mencken originated it. It figures. :-) ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Does Trump Deserve to Lose Your Vote?

Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:36:58 +0000

I have been cheering Trump on from the day he announced his candidacy. From my perspective, he has already accomplished my goal for him, which was to destroy the elitist's control of the GOP wing, of the Incumbrepublocrat UniParty Duopoly. That he utterly crushed the ambitions of Jeb! and Canadian Born Citizen Cruz et al, was more than enough for me. As an increasingly committed anarchist, I never had any intention of actually voting for an obvious statist like Trump. My oft repeated motto has been, "Don't vote; it just encourages the bastards." Yet, you make a compelling argument, Robert, that to now allow Hillary to walk away with it, would be an unmitigated disaster for our posterity. I have to agree that the issues where I disagree with Trump, are of little consequence, when compared with the positives in his agenda and Hillary's negatives. Besides, most any other politician would have most of his negatives too, and fewer of his positives. If I didn't live in the Peoples Democracy of Mexifornia, where Republican and Libertarian votes never matter anyway, I might have to reevaluate my vow to boycott the sham election. I completely agree that voting Libertarian this year would accomplish nothing whatsoever, other than help Hillary. I would recommend that anyone living in a swing and/or battleground State, where their votes might actually matter, give your logic here serious consideration, regardless of their personal ideology. It could matter to future generations, if not our own. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Toward a More Perfect Union

Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:25:36 +0000

Agreed, Jim. Sending a child to a Public School is a particularly egregious form of child abuse. If I were a young man interested in having a family today, I wouldn't even consider marrying a woman who would not agree to put her personal career goals on hold, while she home schooled our children. I spent the past 20 years involved in the Private Montessori Preschool business, and know of what I speak. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Toward a More Perfect Union

Tue, 23 Aug 2016 23:49:36 +0000

Yes, it was planned by Dewy et al over a century ago, Kevin. The explanation is detailed in probably the most informative book I have ever read. I recently found it archived in PDF format: The Underground History of American Education. It is a tome, whose length at first appears daunting; but I found it well worth the time. At least read the Prologue, which begins thus:

The shocking possibility that dumb people don’t exist in sufficient numbers to warrant the millions of careers devoted to tending them will seem incredible to you. Yet that is my central proposition: the mass dumbness which justifies official schooling first had to be dreamed of; it isn’t real.

If you think you detest Progressives now, reading this remarkable history book will give you a whole new perspective, on just how utterly evil they are! ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Peace of Mind, Part IV

Tue, 23 Aug 2016 23:28:14 +0000

I was content to abandon this discussion as futile; but since Mike has taken the time to elegantly disconnect cosmology from biology at length, I will address a couple more misconceptions. You are also erroneously conflating "origins" with the question of belief in a specific god of your choice. Scott Adams expressed his rejection of the so-called miracle, in the Sunday School tale of "Jonah & the Whale," at age 11. That is a very long way from asserting that he had the origin of Life, or the Universe itself, figured out - then or now. As it happens, I can recall my own extreme skepticism at about the same age. How could he breathe? It just did not compute. I had busted my mother putting a dime under my pillow, so I had already figured out that my parents had lied to me about the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus. Why then should I believe that there was also an invisible man in the sky, watching my every move, to decide whether I deserved to go to heaven or hell, when I die some day? That sounded suspiciously like the "naughty or nice" Santa Claus threat to me. It turns out, of course, that Scott and I were right, and this was no miracle. When they excavated the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars were able to translate the ancient scripture directly into modern English, without all the translations and interpretations in between. That is when they discovered that the phrase "swallowed by a big fish," was an idiom of the times, for 'trouble' or 'tribulation.' If today one were to say, "Jonah was in hot water," no one cognizant of the idioms of our times, would believe that he was immersed in a cannibal's stew pot. Another example they found, was that "pillar of salt," was an idiom of their times, for 'paralysis.' If today one were to say, "Sarah turned as stiff as a board," no one would claim she miraculously became a hunk of wood. I reckon Bible literalists could use a healthy dose of skepticism, to deal with the question of why all these fantastical miracles stopped happening a couple thousand years ago. Did you see the movie, "Oh God" with Robert Burns? When it starts raining inside my car, I will perhaps pay more attention to the 'Word of God.' Until then, it is all just unsubstantiated hearsay. ;) ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Peace of Mind, Part IV

Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:44:04 +0000

Interesting, RS. The older I get, the more I realize that such answers will not be forthcoming in what little is left of my life, and the less that reality bothers me. The origin of life is a curiosity for sure; but it has never been a particularly compelling one for me. At this point, as a septuagenarian, I find it of no interest whatever. Of even less interest, has been the question of whether our software and memories, might somehow survive beyond our death. I reckon that exceedingly unlikely, so I waste not a second of the only life I have any reason to expect to experience, pondering, pining, or preparing for some "life after death" oxymoron. I try not to let 'word salad' confuse me. Theists are inclined to twist words like 'faith,' 'belief,' and 'miracle' into contexts contrary to my understanding and usage of such terms. Their frequent claim that the act of disbelieving in the existence of gods, is itself an act of faith, is nonsensical word salad. So is suggesting that the acceptance of the hypothesis of evolution as a valid theory, is also the same as a religious belief system. If theists would acknowledge that the particular gods they worship are also only an unprovable theory, on a par with all other cultish belief system theories, then perhaps we can talk. Please define what you mean by 'miracle,' as you use it here. It seems to me that you are trying to use it as a synonym for 'phenomenon.' I have no beef with the existence of phenomena. When I say I don't believe in miracles, my intent comports with the dictionary definition: "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God." We may not be able to answer the questions about life's origins; but it is certainly here and functioning just fine, within the constraints of the laws of nature as we understand them. If everything living is somehow a 'miracle,' then the term no longer denotes something unusual, and has become virtually meaningless. BTW, as a farm manager in Africa, and a cattle rancher in California, I have personally been involved in the selective breeding of animals and hybrid seed crops. I have observed the process of 'evolution' in real-time, for a good many species. It is not only not miraculous to me, it is not even a theory. It is proven technology. :-) ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Peace of Mind, Part IV

Fri, 19 Aug 2016 08:24:21 +0000

" Who knows, my dad may yet bring his sceptical, jaded son around to a belief system..." Yikes! Don't go wobbly on us, RS. You would then have to change your screen name! I suppose if you just dropped the 'Reality' part, the 'Seeker' would fit right in, with classic 'guru speak' of other mystics. ;-) Interestingly, in Stefan Molyneux's latest video interview, Scott Adams makes a persuasive point that happiness is greater among irrational people. I figured out years ago, that the primary purpose of mysticism, meditation, psychedelic drugs, etc. is the attempt to escape the natural inclination of one's mind, to learn and deal with sometimes harsh reality. All one need do is stop its incessant thinking! Even in Genesis, God supposedly offered Adam & Eve eternal mindless bliss in paradise, if they just didn't ask any rational questions. The Devil offered Eve the alternative, of the opportunity to acquire knowledge. I just couldn't help it, my ever-inquisitive mind would have made Eve's choice in a heartbeat. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Peace of Mind, Part IV

Thu, 18 Aug 2016 19:02:39 +0000

"Taken?" As I recall, Dale Carnegie 'gave' or more precisely, 'sold' his advice. If Robert has incorporated some, or even 'much,' of his wisdom into his own philosophy, whatever is wrong with that? I bought and read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" about 50 years ago, which was already 30 years after he wrote it. At this point, I can't recall a single passage from it; but it undoubtedly had a positive 'influence' on my social skills, and reasonably successful life. When I now give youngsters advice, it undoubtedly contains elements that I originally absorbed from Dale Carnegie. Then, it also contains elements that I absorbed from Robert Ringer, Harry Browne, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Robert Heinlein, and several dozen other authors, from which I have assimilated my personal outlook on life. I often mention such influences when writing, and recommend their books to others, yet I don't recall ever mentioning Carnegie. I guess his input was so basic, and so very long ago, that I have no recollection that it was particularly profound. My advice might even include an original insight or two; but probably not. More likely, anything I might say that seems unique, is just an juxtaposition of two or more earlier influences or uncommon experiences. I reckon that original thought is rare indeed. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Peace of Mind, Part III

Thu, 18 Aug 2016 02:06:22 +0000

Thanks, Jim. Your always thoughtful participation there would certainly be welcome. Yes, just imagine what the world could be like, if everyone spent a lot more time trying to effectively use their own minds, and a lot less concerning themselves with what might be going on in others. The very notion of thought crimes, or the attendant thought police, strikes me as ludicrous. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Peace of Mind, Part III

Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:29:53 +0000

I have noticed how rarely you even respond to negative feedback, and are always gracious when you do. I have also noticed how often the rest of us regular commenters and admirers, leap to your defense for you. Excellent strategy, Sir. Personally, my attitude toward thoughtless negativity, is encapsulated in a little ditty, which I composed years ago: Why should I care what others think? Most clueless sheeple don’t. Emoters choose instead to feel, Dogmatic faithful won’t. I thoroughly enjoy discussing and debating rational ideas. Emotions and mysticism, not so much. ;-) ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Donald Trump’s Valiant Try

Fri, 12 Aug 2016 06:21:22 +0000

Welcome to the book club, Kaizen. Thanks for the link. That site is quite a resource. I am sure that Harry would not object to his classic being now available for free, to anyone willing to take the time to read it. Pamela was well taken care of, and I personally bought dozens of copies of it, to give to others I cared about, back when he was still alive. Besides, I am not sure I even agree with the notion of intellectual property being inheritable, by those who had little or nothing to do with its creation. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Peace of Mind, Part I

Thu, 11 Aug 2016 21:09:07 +0000

My hermitage is a stress-free zone, and you are correct to suggest that social obligations are at the root of much stress. I leave its peaceful shelter about once a week, for fresh supplies. Thus, I only need to refill my reliable old truck's fuel tanks, about once every three months. I owe nobody a dime, have no need of credit, and live quite comfortably on a ridiculously low budget. Modern technology is awesome. My TV has a DVR, and both have on/off switches, so I can choose if and when to watch news, without commercial interruptions. Caller ID and voice mail, allow me to pick and choose who I talk to at my convenience, not theirs. I get to choose which e-mails to even bother to view, much less answer. I find intellectually stimulating conversation rare among those one generally encounters in public, so I choose the vicarious alternative online. I choose when and what articles to read, on what topics, and whether to comment on any of them. Even my own blog gets new content only when I am in the mood. Exercising free choice is the key to avoiding stress, and probably the most important choice is how one reacts to adversity. I have learned to choose to laugh, rather than weep or rant, at circumstances beyond my control, such as hopeless sheeple and their shepherds. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Donald Trump’s Valiant Try

Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:17:07 +0000

Agreed, Jim. "Restoring the American Dream," and its bibliography, initially made a libertarian out of me, before Browne taught me to concentrate on my own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Donald Trump’s Valiant Try

Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:08:15 +0000

I'm impressed, Jay. It is always refreshing to encounter an open mind. You will enjoy the book. It is now available on Kindle; but I must warn you that it will likely change your life. Jim, Robert, and I will reserve a spot for you in our Harry Browne fan club. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Donald Trump’s Valiant Try

Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:28:18 +0000

Of course, Robert. I have been an ardent devotee, since I first read "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World." With apologies for some of your own, which I similarly cherish, that is my all-time favorite book. I have reread it at least once a year since 1979, just to keep myself grounded. ◄Dave►

RobertRinger.com : Donald Trump’s Valiant Try

Tue, 9 Aug 2016 23:29:57 +0000

Jay, has it ever occurred to you to envy those "too caught up in their own worlds to care?" Our founders placed much emphasis on man's natural rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The very purpose of 'Life' is the 'Pursuit of Happiness.' One does not find happiness by focusing on evils beyond one's control. If ignorance really is bliss, then perhaps we all should turn off the news. Then, at least the oligarchs couldn't keep us riled up, and at each other's throats, instead of their own. Since 'Liberty' is the antithesis of the state, the best way to achieve personal freedom, is to simply ignore the very existence of governments, as best one can. Doing so as an individual, does not require 'leaders' or any sort of organized 'revolt,' and one's personal success does not require convincing anyone else of anything. Bobbing, weaving, and dodging the occasional government agent, is infinitely easier and more effective, than trying to convince enough sheeple to vote for less government. Never assume that all those of us who vote 'None of the Above,' by the simple expedient of boycotting elections, are just apathetic. What would happen if they held an election and nobody came? At least they couldn't claim a 'mandate' for their agenda. Practically, the whole sham UniParty government would collapse almost overnight, without firing a shot. Then, the even more provocative question could be pondered: why bother to replace it? What actually useful function does government perform that couldn't be done better and cheaper by private enterprise? ◄Dave►