# "atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics



## washamericom

this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.

i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..

life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".

you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.

as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral. 

i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now. 


it looks good, no, great.


----------



## cutter

I love the book and am now reading it again. I hope the message of the book comes through and is not hijacked by the liberal left that seems to be too prominent in Hollywood. Next to the bible I think this is the best book ever written.


----------



## Bern80

Awesome. I hope liberal hollywood doesn't bastardize it. My favorite book as well. Interesting that it's going to be multiple movies. Then again it's long book. I was looking in the trailer for any indication of the latter part where Dagney spends time in the hidden valley. I'm guessing that probably won't be in the first part.


----------



## washamericom

cutter said:


> I love the book and am now reading it again. I hope the message of the book comes through and is not hijacked by the liberal left that seems to be too prominent in Hollywood. Next to the bible I think this is the best book ever written.



same here, and part of it's success and longevity is the reaction we will see from the left.
i too wonder if the essence of the philosophy will shine through, i guess if they try to liberalize ayn rand, hollywood will be madison wisconsin, only for all the right reasons... i'll lead the charge. the people will always find the truth, as in the case of the 08 election.


----------



## washamericom

Bern80 said:


> Awesome. I hope liberal hollywood doesn't bastardize it. My favorite book as well. Interesting that it's going to be multiple movies. Then again it's long book. I was looking in the trailer for any indication of the latter part where Dagney spends time in the hidden valley. I'm guessing that probably won't be in the first part.



don't give the gulch away for the people who want to read it.
breaking it up is a tremendous concept, bold and daring, like taggert rearden danaskjold, mulligan ...et. al.
i buying stock in signet, and crusader entertainment. this will be a phenominom because it taps so deeply in the the emotion and roots, of the founding fathers philosophy, and the birth of america.


----------



## AquaAthena

I have the book and am reading it. Because of it's length, 1168 pages of the prophetic wisdom of Ayn Rand, 50 years ago, the movie will be made in three separate productions. Can't wait. I am hoping the Independents will absorb it, for we know the Left will not.


----------



## gekaap

I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver.  Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.  One thing I found very curious is Rand's inconsistent portrayal of the general public and public sentiment.  On one hand she portrays the public as knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.  But when it suits her she subsequently portrays the public as mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.

Rand's proper characters, both antagonists and protagonists alike, are written as if being embodies metaphors for the supreme purity of concepts Rand wished to present.  This makes them believable in the Rand universe similar to how Gollum is a believable character within the LOTR universe, but unbelievable as characters that might exist in reality.  While Rand does an excellent job of presenting a thoroughly thought out narrative and maintains a steady pace of developing the complexity of the plot as the story unfolds, in the end the plot itself, its developments, and Rand's suggestion about how our world might go if we so allowed it, only exists because it was so written.


----------



## Claudette

I read it as well. Thought it sucked. You can have Rand. 

I'll take Dorothy Dunnets Lymond Chronicles any day of the week.


----------



## editec

I will undoubtably watch it.

If they manage to do justice to the plotline, and spare us on the polemic, this ought to be a damned fine film.


----------



## editec

gekaap said:


> I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver. Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.


 
Exactly the kind of material  Hollywood likes.

I agree with you literary critcism of the novel, but one thing that Ayn did well was craft a plotline that compels the reader to keep reading to to find our what is going on.

If the film does _just that_ it ought to be a decent film.

If they load it down with Ayns tortured polemics, they're ruin the film.

EVen if you agree with every goofy word she puts into the mouths of her characters, that won't work on celluloid.


----------



## AquaAthena

editec said:


> I will undoubtably watch it.
> 
> If they manage to do justice to the plotline, and spare us on the polemic, this ought to be a damned fine film.



Yes is should. It took Rand 12 years to write it and according to a press release from the Ayn Rand Institute, over 7 million copies had been sold by the US publishers as of January 2010, with sales in 2009 along being over 500,000 copies. This presumably does not include sales from other countries, whether in English or translated. There has been a sustained interest in this book for 52 years. 

I have long been an Ayn Rand advocate and supporter. There is a movie based on one of her books, "The Fountainhead" and I loved watching it 3 times, from Netflix.  Some great actors. Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal ( in her debut performance). HOT movie.


----------



## konradv

Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

konradv said:


> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.



No doubt _Das Kapital _was a damn fine read though...


----------



## konradv

Soggy in NOLA said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt _Das Kapital _was a damn fine read though...
Click to expand...


It didn't try to masquerade as a novel.  That all you got to say?  A "you're a commie" one-liner?!?!   Get back to us when you've got something of substance to say.


----------



## Bern80

gekaap said:


> I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver.  Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.  One thing I found very curious is Rand's inconsistent portrayal of the general public and public sentiment.  On one hand she portrays the public as knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.  But when it suits her she subsequently portrays the public as mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.



Well it is a work of fiction you know. Rand had a world view just as you have a world view. The reason it failed to deliver for you is because those world views don't line up. It isn't because her world view is wrong and your's is right. And I don't recall any inconsistency in her portrayal of the public. There wasn't a majority singular view of the general public because that isn't reality. Some people had one set of beliefs while other had another just like the real world. Believe it or not the majority of the country is not liberal. This country is split ideologically pretty much 50/50.



gekaap said:


> Rand's proper characters, both antagonists and protagonists alike, are written as if being embodies metaphors for the supreme purity of concepts Rand wished to present.  This makes them believable in the Rand universe similar to how Gollum is a believable character within the LOTR universe, but unbelievable as characters that might exist in reality.  While Rand does an excellent job of presenting a thoroughly thought out narrative and maintains a steady pace of developing the complexity of the plot as the story unfolds, in the end the plot itself, its developments, and Rand's suggestion about how our world might go if we so allowed it, only exists because it was so written.



On the contrary what happened in the book very much parllels what is really happening. In the book the producers and manufacturers decided they were tired of being dictated to by overzealous and derisive elements of society......so they left. The only difference is instead of the people leaving to form their own society with the rules they want, they are leaving to other countries to produce what they want. 

The point I got from the book is this is what will happen if bearucrats keep punishing the producers, those that provide jobs, and generally treating them as evil and regulating them as such. Those producers may just decide to take their proverbial 'ball' and go elsehwere and then you'll be sorry when there aren't more jobs and there isn't anyone willing to produce the thing you wanted all the while deriding the peope that produced it as evil. That isn't a fairy tale ending. That indeed can and in many cases already has happened.


----------



## Claudette

konradv said:


> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.



You got that right. 

I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL

I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book. 

Jesus. Boredom plus.


----------



## washamericom

konradv said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt _Das Kapital _was a damn fine read though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't try to masquerade as a novel.  That all you got to say?  A "you're a commie" one-liner?!?!   Get back to us when you've got something of substance to say.
Click to expand...


i thought it was damn funny... could i still be one of... "us" ??  
 actually i only read the first 975 pages... why did something happen ??


----------



## washamericom

gekaap said:


> I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver.  Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.  One thing I found very curious is Rand's inconsistent portrayal of the general public and public sentiment.  On one hand she portrays the public as knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.  But when it suits her she subsequently portrays the public as mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> Rand's proper characters, both antagonists and protagonists alike, are written as if being embodies metaphors for the supreme purity of concepts Rand wished to present.  This makes them believable in the Rand universe similar to how Gollum is a believable character within the LOTR universe, but unbelievable as characters that might exist in reality.  While Rand does an excellent job of presenting a thoroughly thought out narrative and maintains a steady pace of developing the complexity of the plot as the story unfolds, in the end the plot itself, its developments, and Rand's suggestion about how our world might go if we so allowed it, only exists because it was so written.




incredible... you get it... this is gold... you have single handedly defined "the american people"

liberals:  mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.

conservatives:  knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.

i'm taking this to madison


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

The Book has been a fool proof indicator  of intelligence. Idiots hate it. Nuff said.


----------



## KissMy

John Stossel did a show on Atlas Shrugged. It is on YouTube. Below is the first of 6 parts on YouTube.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QmAzEsrtyo"]John Stossel - Atlas Shrugged 1 of 6[/ame]


----------



## washamericom

mr.fitnah said:


> the book has been a fool proof indicator  of intelligence. Idiots hate it. Nuff said.



true... Another good test of intelligence is when someone wears headphones, do they yell when they try to talk to you ? It's because they can't hear themselves, and can't compensate

How about when you're driving and you're trying to see out the passenger window when you are about to pull out... If they lean forward at the same time you do...

Liberal idiots get all trotsky when the book gets mentioned


----------



## Jroc

AquaAthena said:


> I have long been an Ayn Rand advocate and supporter. There is a movie based on one of her books, "The Fountainhead" and I loved watching it 3 times, from Netflix.  Some great actors. Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal ( in her debut performance). HOT movie.



Humm...I've never heard of this movie, I'm going to have to check it out.


----------



## jillian

As a political philosopher, ayn rand was a terrific novelist...


----------



## jillian

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The Book has been a fool proof indicator  of intelligence. Idiots hate it. Nuff said.



"Book" isn't a proper noun in the above sentence and shouldn't be capitalized.


----------



## washamericom

Jroc said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have long been an Ayn Rand advocate and supporter. There is a movie based on one of her books, "The Fountainhead" and I loved watching it 3 times, from Netflix.  Some great actors. Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal ( in her debut performance). HOT movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humm...I've never heard of this movie, I'm going to have to check it out.
Click to expand...


the fountainhead is awesome too, there aren't too many movies i'll watch in black and white.
 she didn't write many novels.  we the living...
you might also check out some of the interviews with ayn...


live television...


----------



## rikules

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.




todays conservative political leaders do NOT want smaller government.

they want LAWS!

and LAWS mean BIG GOVERNMENT.

newt gingrich "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our (christian) religious beliefs
and see to iit that they can NEVER BE CHANGED AGAIN"

tell me.....
how can you wage war on gays and atheists and liberals without big government?


----------



## 8537

a perfectly entertaining work of fiction that could benefit from some serious editing.


----------



## Zander

The trailer looks aweseome. I will most definetely see it. Loved the book too.


----------



## Sallow

Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.

It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.

The irony was thick with this one.


----------



## rikules

washamericom said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver.  Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.  One thing I found very curious is Rand's inconsistent portrayal of the general public and public sentiment.  On one hand she portrays the public as knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.  But when it suits her she subsequently portrays the public as mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> Rand's proper characters, both antagonists and protagonists alike, are written as if being embodies metaphors for the supreme purity of concepts Rand wished to present.  This makes them believable in the Rand universe similar to how Gollum is a believable character within the LOTR universe, but unbelievable as characters that might exist in reality.  While Rand does an excellent job of presenting a thoroughly thought out narrative and maintains a steady pace of developing the complexity of the plot as the story unfolds, in the end the plot itself, its developments, and Rand's suggestion about how our world might go if we so allowed it, only exists because it was so written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incredible... you get it... this is gold... you have single handedly defined "the american people"
> 
> liberals:  mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> conservatives:  knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.
> 
> i'm taking this to madison
Click to expand...



great
just what we needed
an another arrogant ignorant right wing conservative

liberals believe in a kinder, gentler nation in which all people live decent, happy, healthy lives

you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty


----------



## geauxtohell

A single book is going to change American politics?  That sounds amazing!  When did this book come out?

Oh, wait..

1957?  

Maybe it will be a delayed reaction........


----------



## code1211

gekaap said:


> I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver.  Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.  One thing I found very curious is Rand's inconsistent portrayal of the general public and public sentiment.  On one hand she portrays the public as knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.  But when it suits her she subsequently portrays the public as mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> Rand's proper characters, both antagonists and protagonists alike, are written as if being embodies metaphors for the supreme purity of concepts Rand wished to present.  This makes them believable in the Rand universe similar to how Gollum is a believable character within the LOTR universe, but unbelievable as characters that might exist in reality.  While Rand does an excellent job of presenting a thoroughly thought out narrative and maintains a steady pace of developing the complexity of the plot as the story unfolds, in the end the plot itself, its developments, and Rand's suggestion about how our world might go if we so allowed it, only exists because it was so written.





By making everything bogger than life and exagerated in outcome, Rand demonstrates the conclusion that she is presenting.  Atlas Shrugged is not Shakespeare.  Shakespeare leads to your own understanding of the world about you while only allowing a glimpse of the author's self.  Rand carves a harsh sculpture and shines a light on it.

Rand's style is Rand.  

Two very different styles and two very different intents.

Because they share a language, more or less, they have similarities, but in terms of an art form, it's the difference between poetry and propaganda.

All that said though, the writings of both of these folks changed my life.


----------



## washamericom

you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty 

is that so wrong ?


----------



## washamericom

geauxtohell said:


> A single book is going to change American politics?  That sounds amazing!  When did this book come out?
> 
> Oh, wait..
> 
> 1957?
> 
> Maybe it will be a delayed reaction........



it's a real thick book though man...


----------



## washamericom

Sallow said:


> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.



jefferson died broke, so did jesus i think... makes sense to me.


----------



## 8537

washamericom said:


> you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty
> 
> is that so wrong ?



Is it wrong to work to _assure_ that _millions_ live in_ poverty?_

Yes, it is. 

What kind of fucked up world do you live in?


----------



## ClosedCaption

A conservative book coming out of Hollywood?  Lol...and repubs still claim Hollywood is liberal while a conservative movie is being released.

Perpetual victimhood must be tiring


----------



## Sallow

washamericom said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jefferson died broke, so did jesus i think... makes sense to me.
Click to expand...


Yes..but instead of refusing the help of the Government..she did like the masses she so demonized.


----------



## rikules

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



we conservatives believe in smaller government

and that is why we need laws against pot smoking
and against homosexuality
and divorce
and sex out side of marriage


we conservatives believe in FREEDOM
and that is why we need laws against pot smoking
and homosexuality
and divorce
and sex out side of marriage

we conservatives believe the government should stay out of  our bedrooms

and that is why we need laws against pot smoking
and homosexuality
and divorce
and sex out side of marriage


----------



## code1211

Bern80 said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver.  Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.  One thing I found very curious is Rand's inconsistent portrayal of the general public and public sentiment.  On one hand she portrays the public as knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.  But when it suits her she subsequently portrays the public as mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is a work of fiction you know. Rand had a world view just as you have a world view. The reason it failed to deliver for you is because those world views don't line up. It isn't because her world view is wrong and your's is right. And I don't recall any inconsistency in her portrayal of the public. There wasn't a majority singular view of the general public because that isn't reality. Some people had one set of beliefs while other had another just like the real world. Believe it or not the majority of the country is not liberal. This country is split ideologically pretty much 50/50.
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand's proper characters, both antagonists and protagonists alike, are written as if being embodies metaphors for the supreme purity of concepts Rand wished to present.  This makes them believable in the Rand universe similar to how Gollum is a believable character within the LOTR universe, but unbelievable as characters that might exist in reality.  While Rand does an excellent job of presenting a thoroughly thought out narrative and maintains a steady pace of developing the complexity of the plot as the story unfolds, in the end the plot itself, its developments, and Rand's suggestion about how our world might go if we so allowed it, only exists because it was so written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary what happened in the book very much parllels what is really happening. In the book the producers and manufacturers decided they were tired of being dictated to by overzealous and derisive elements of society......so they left. The only difference is instead of the people leaving to form their own society with the rules they want, they are leaving to other countries to produce what they want.
> 
> The point I got from the book is this is what will happen if bearucrats keep punishing the producers, those that provide jobs, and generally treating them as evil and regulating them as such. Those producers may just decide to take their proverbial 'ball' and go elsehwere and then you'll be sorry when there aren't more jobs and there isn't anyone willing to produce the thing you wanted all the while deriding the peope that produced it as evil. That isn't a fairy tale ending. That indeed can and in many cases already has happened.
Click to expand...



If anyone feels like they're being abused, they have the choice to continue to take it or to leave.  If that person is an employee, they quit and find a new job.

If that person is a mover and shaker, they will do what is required.  Companies move to new cities, to new countries or take as much abuse as they can and then go out of business.

Governments who provide enough abuse to those who drive the economy will find that those who are driving things will vanish from the scene.  This not a fantasy.  It's a cautionary tale.


----------



## washamericom

Sallow said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jefferson died broke, so did jesus i think... makes sense to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes..but instead of refusing the help of the Government..she did like the masses she so demonized.
Click to expand...


she died for her art...


----------



## geauxtohell

washamericom said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A single book is going to change American politics?  That sounds amazing!  When did this book come out?
> 
> Oh, wait..
> 
> 1957?
> 
> Maybe it will be a delayed reaction........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's a real thick book though man...
Click to expand...


Sorry.  I am just continually amused by the people who place more value in Rand's work than society has.  

The book is influential.  It's hardly the great American novel and it's been around a long time.

I doubt putting it on the big screen is going to cause a renaissance in American politics.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The discussion of 'producers' ignores the real world in which we live, and all the talk is nothing more than mental masturbation: feels good but is sterile.  Much like Ayn Rand.

The movie will not do well and will not develop any type of cult following.  Sorry, guys: 18 of you is not a cult.


----------



## geauxtohell

washamericom said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> jefferson died broke, so did jesus i think... makes sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..but instead of refusing the help of the Government..she did like the masses she so demonized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> she died for her art...
Click to expand...


She died because she had a 100 pack year habit and got lung cancer.

Medicare picked up the bill for her treatment.  

True story.


----------



## washamericom

geauxtohell said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A single book is going to change American politics?  That sounds amazing!  When did this book come out?
> 
> Oh, wait..
> 
> 1957?
> 
> Maybe it will be a delayed reaction........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's a real thick book though man...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry.  I am just continually amused by the people who place more value in Rand's work than society has.
> 
> The book is influential.  It's hardly the great American novel and it's been around a long time.
> 
> I doubt putting it on the big screen is going to cause a renaissance in American politics.
Click to expand...


that's kinda the point... it's just a movie. but if a young man with almost no experience at anything, can rise from obscurity, and by a few (albiet lucky) simple twists of fate, be *elected* the leader of the free world, anything can happen. i think this one may surprise everybody.


----------



## code1211

rikules said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> todays conservative political leaders do NOT want smaller government.
> 
> they want LAWS!
> 
> and LAWS mean BIG GOVERNMENT.
> 
> newt gingrich "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our (christian) religious beliefs
> and see to iit that they can NEVER BE CHANGED AGAIN"
> 
> tell me.....
> how can you wage war on gays and atheists and liberals without big government?
Click to expand...




You suffer from a misconception.  You think that a person who claims to be Conservative is a Conservative.  

If a person wants to draw power to the central government, expand the influence of government on the lives of private citizens or wants to take the money and property rights of Private Citizens, that person is NOT a Conservative.

If a person departs from laws and proceeds to personal whims to achieve his ends, he is not a Conservative.  If he runs up the public debt for self agrandisement or unfunded whimsey in the face of real needs elsewhere, he is not a conservative.

We haven't had many Conservatives in this country in positions of power because the idiots who vote seem to prefer bribes to leadership.  Sadly, in a Democracy, people get exactly the government that they deserve.  This being the case, we are, as a country, screwed.

All of that said though, regardless of what anyone calls himself, he is a Conservative based only on what he does, not on what he says.


----------



## washamericom

awesome.. well said


----------



## gekaap

code1211 said:


> By making everything bogger than life and exagerated in outcome, Rand demonstrates the conclusion that she is presenting.



I think that pretty much goes without saying.  But the conclusion she is presenting is only made possible through those exaggerations, and that's my point.  The real world, even our very politically polarized nation of today, does not exist in such pure absolutes.  There is a nearly infinite ocean of gray in a constant state of changing flux which is a major stablizer in the world.  At best, Rand shows that extreme positions lead to extreme results.  And the irony is that by resorting to the extremes she did, she succumbs to the very thing her book should have warned us against.  In the end, she moots her own message.


----------



## washamericom

There is a nearly infinite ocean of gray in a constant state of changing flux which is a major stablizer in the world. 

what ?  i mean... huh ?


----------



## gekaap

washamericom said:


> what ?  i mean... huh ?



I mean the world is not a simple place of this good, that bad, him left, her right.  We do not live in a world where all people's attitudes, beliefs, actions, etc. tightly revolve around the the poles.  We live in a world where Republicans support abortion rights and Democrats support tougher border security.  We live in a society that dislikes when people revolve around those poles; we call such people extremists and with the exception of those extremists themselves we universally reject extremism.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sallow said:


> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.



There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

geauxtohell said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..but instead of refusing the help of the Government..she did like the masses she so demonized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she died for her art...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She died because she had a 100 pack year habit and got lung cancer.
> 
> Medicare picked up the bill for her treatment.
> 
> True story.
Click to expand...


Link ?


----------



## jgarden

*"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics - sorry to disappoint you but by 2050 American Hispanics will represent approxomately 30% of the population, blacks 13% and Orientals 8%.  That 51% will "literally" be the changing face of American politics in the forseeable future.

Visible minorities will account for the majority of Amerivans - "whites" will become a minority.  In addition, Hispanics, blacks and Orientals traditionally vote for the "Democrats" - the Republicans and the Tea Party may reflect aspirations of many "whites," but the real future of American politics will be going in the opposite direction!

The mere fact that Barack Obama, a black politician with leftist leanings, was elected president in 2008 is just a foreunner of things to come.  In California, New Mexico and now Texas, visible minorities are already in the majority and this inevitadle "changing of the guard" will occur throughout the South over the next decade.  Politically, traditionally "red" states will begin toppling like 10 pins.

A shift to the political "right" may be a dream of many conservative American "whites," but "dream" is the operative word.*


----------



## snjmom

Mr.Fitnah said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> she died for her art...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She died because she had a 100 pack year habit and got lung cancer.
> 
> Medicare picked up the bill for her treatment.
> 
> True story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link ?
Click to expand...



Just wiki it.


----------



## Sallow

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling
> 
> [
Click to expand...


Not expecting an apology..but..

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet
Ayn Rand, socialist | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Cynical-C | Ayn Rand Received Social Security


----------



## The Gadfly

"you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty"

What I believe, is that the above, like it or not, is human nature, and that ultimately, flying in the face of it with a political ideology is a futile enterprise. You can force people to behave otherwise, or at least pretend to; you cannot, however, make them like it. This is why communism failed (it cannot exist, without a tyranny to support it), and why socialism and liberalism, as advocated today, cannot long prevail in a democracy. The real world *is* dog eat dog, and most people, instinctively knowing that, live and act accordingly, regardless of what they say. Liberals know this as well as anyone (why else would they be so determined to silence or even eliminate their political opposition) and are just as ruthless in pursuit of power as anyone else, all their protestations of "unselfishness" to the contrary.


----------



## skeptic

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



This is the funniest OP in the history of the internet!

Objectivism is a crock. There is no objective truth and if there was you would never know what it was. 

But thanks for playing. You ideologues really take the cake. 

Maybe you should subscribe to the tenets of Calvinism instead. I suspect it will be an even better match for your ignorance and susceptibilities. 



> # "Total depravity": This doctrine, also called "total inability," asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)[7]
> # "Unconditional election": This doctrine asserts that God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. Conversely, God has also chosen from eternity to withhold himself from the unelect, and condemn them to face his wrath. [8]
> # "Limited atonement": Also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement," this doctrine asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power (in other words, God could have elected everyone and used it to atone for them all, but for inscrutable reasons he has elected to provide efficacious atonement for only a portion of humanity), but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all. Hence, Calvinists hold that the atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect.[9] The doctrine is driven by the Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and their understanding of the nature of the atonement.
> # "Irresistible grace": This doctrine, also called "efficacious grace," asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, "graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ."[10]
> # "Perseverance of the saints": Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints (The word "saints" is used in the Biblical sense to refer to all who are set apart by God, and not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven). The doctrine asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return



Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Maple

I can't wait until this movie comes out, France would not allow it to be written in the French language, they certainly felt threatened by it, but they should as it shows the evils of socialism. I think Obama needs to read it.

I hope that all of you conservatives and independents take your voting age children to see this movie. It will change them from mush heads that believe anything they hear and see and turn them into critical thinkers of government policy and the fallacies that are being promoted today by a very liberal bunch of mush heads who happen to be in the executive office.

I hear it was a businessman that invested 10 million dollars to make this movie. Please pass this information on to all of your contacts and urge them to see it. It makes you think and think critically.


----------



## Maple

The Gadfly said:


> "you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty"
> 
> What I believe, is that the above, like it or not, is human nature, and that ultimately, flying in the face of it with a political ideology is a futile enterprise. You can force people to behave otherwise, or at least pretend to; you cannot, however, make them like it. This is why communism failed (it cannot exist, without a tyranny to support it), and why socialism and liberalism, as advocated today, cannot long prevail in a democracy. The real world *is* dog eat dog, and most people, instinctively knowing that, live and act accordingly, regardless of what they say. Liberals know this as well as anyone (why else would they be so determined to silence or even eliminate their political opposition) and are just as ruthless in pursuit of power as anyone else, all their protestations of "unselfishness" to the contrary.



Captilism has brought more people up and out of poverty than any government program ever did. That's a proven fact, but then again Liberals ignore the facts. Clinton's end of welfare as we know it, propelled people out of the projects and into the middle class, you ask why? Because you either sink or you swim.


----------



## gekaap

Sorry, had to.


----------



## Agit8r

cutter said:


> Next to the bible I think this is the best book ever written.



  the two books are completely incompatible


----------



## MikeK

Sallow said:


> [...]It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> [...]


Therein lies the tale.


----------



## washamericom

Maple said:


> I can't wait until this movie comes out, France would not allow it to be written in the French language, they certainly felt threatened by it, but they should as it shows the evils of socialism. I think Obama needs to read it.
> 
> I hope that all of you conservatives and independents take your voting age children to see this movie. It will change them from mush heads that believe anything they hear and see and turn them into critical thinkers of government policy and the fallacies that are being promoted today by a very liberal bunch of mush heads who happen to be in the executive office.
> 
> I hear it was a businessman that invested 10 million dollars to make this movie. Please pass this information on to all of your contacts and urge them to see it. It makes you think and think critically.



france trying to censor the book is icing on the objective cake, i hate the french. (sarkosy has been better recently though).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

i'm hoping that the movie (which makes objectivism more consumable for the public) will inspire that elusive american dream again, when hard work and individual achievement drive the economy to where it should be. this is instead of "we need to spread the wealth around" and "we can't have sucessful corporations producing _too much_ (more than their "fair share" a term (theme) you will be hearing alot in the upcoming election)

 this applies accurately to cap and trade specifically, where (according to wikkepedia) "a government authority" will determine how much a corporation can consume and emit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading


----------



## ClosedCaption

Sallow said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling
> 
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not expecting an apology..but..
> 
> Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet
> Ayn Rand, socialist | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> Cynical-C | Ayn Rand Received Social Security
Click to expand...




I guess she realized she couldnt pay her medical bills with ideas and platitudes


----------



## beowolfe

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



Dictators loved it too.  Gave them justifications for staying in power.


----------



## Mr. Peepers

You neocons LIKE that the manly "producers" drop off the grid and form a commune in the end?  Because that's exactly what they effing do!  You like that do you, hippies?


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty
> 
> is that so wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it wrong to work to _assure_ that _millions_ live in_ poverty?_
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> What kind of fucked up world do you live in?
Click to expand...


Thanks for illustrating your logical fallacy. Just because one believs one's own self interest should be served first, is not the same thing as attempting to make sure everyone else stays poor.

The problem with you Rand bashers is your mischaracterization of her beliefs. You equate serving one's own interests with hurting others. They are not one in the same, nor is the latter what Rand advocated.


----------



## washamericom

Mr. Peepers said:


> You neocons LIKE that the manly "producers" drop off the grid and form a commune in the end?  Because that's exactly what they effing do!  You like that do you, hippies?



shhhhh, i haven't seen it yet


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> shhhhh, i haven't seen it yet



You didn't read the book?  It's neocon soft porn (very soft).


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> Thanks for illustrating your logical fallacy. Just because one believs one's own self interest should be served first, is not the same thing as attempting to make sure everyone else stays poor.



Look around you... that is EXACTLY what is happening right now.



> The problem with you Rand bashers is your mischaracterization of her beliefs. You equate serving one's own interests with hurting others.



And who are the people "hurting" and being asked to sacrifice?  It's teachers, the working poor and the middle class, that's who.  American workers, that's who.  It sure ain't Wall Street executives or anyone in the top 2% - they get continued tax relief while the rest are left go under water.


----------



## dilloduck

Are we to pretend that managing one's personal economy is no longer the responsibility of an American citizen ? Are you claiming that some people are just not able to function in our economy ?


----------



## washamericom

Mr. Peepers said:


> shhhhh, i haven't seen it yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the book?  It's neocon soft porn (very soft).
Click to expand...


i was waiting for the movie to come out. 

who reads books anymore. see the movie you're in and out in two hours. (or four if it's a two parter)


----------



## G.T.

Something you haven't seen or read fully is sure to change the face of American Politics today? Talk about a fan boy! ; )


----------



## Bern80

Mr. Peepers said:


> Thanks for illustrating your logical fallacy. Just because one believs one's own self interest should be served first, is not the same thing as attempting to make sure everyone else stays poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look around you... that is EXACTLY what is happening right now.
Click to expand...


No, the wealthy making money is NOT what is causing the middle class and poor to stay poor and middle class. Though it is only human nature to blame others for your problems.




Mr. Peepers said:


> And who are the people "hurting" and being asked to sacrifice?  It's teachers, the working poor and the middle class, that's who.  American workers, that's who.  It sure ain't Wall Street executives or anyone in the top 2% - they get continued tax relief while the rest are left go under water.



Sure they are. But those people hurting is not the bi-product of some other group of people accumulating wealth.

To the issue of the workng poor and teachers etc. I believe Rand would simply say that it is not the responsibility of others to maintain their standard of living. You are not entitled to be insulated from all fluctuating market conditions. Your job may not be as valuable tomorrow as it is today. When you say whiny bullshit like 'the rest are left to go under water' I have to ask the question who is it you believe 'left' you there? Regardless of whomever or whatever you think it is THAT is the problem in the thinking of you lefties. No one left you there. You no why? *Because it wasn't anyone elses fucking job in the first place to keep you from getting left somewhere on the lower rungs of the standard of living ladder.* It was YOUR job to take the actions that need to be taken in order to be where you wanted to be.


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> who reads books anymore. see the movie you're in and out in two hours. (or four if it's a two parter)



And here we find the problem with this country...


----------



## 8537

Bern80 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty
> 
> is that so wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it wrong to work to _assure_ that _millions_ live in_ poverty?_
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> What kind of fucked up world do you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for illustrating your logical fallacy. Just because one believs one's own self interest should be served first, is not the same thing as attempting to make sure everyone else stays poor.
Click to expand...


Eh, the poster asked if its wrong to work diligently to ensure that millions live in poverty.  You should take up your complaint with him/her.



> The problem with you Rand bashers is your mischaracterization of her beliefs. You equate serving one's own interests with hurting others.



The problem with you Rand lovers is that you make shit up, whole cloth.  I said nothing at all similar - or in any way related - to the tripe you wrote above.


----------



## Big Fitz

I do not trust hollywood to have been faithful to the book.

I will be ecstatic if they are true to the book, it's foundational ideology and character archetypes that are the basis of this masterpiece.

Personally, if this is successful in these aspects, I hope they remake "The Fountainhead".  That book is really a triumph in a way.  A modern heroic epic that exalts the power and dignity of individualism, rather than drags it through the mud.  Ellsworth Toohey's revelation soliloquy to Peter Keating after his betrayal of Roark is one of the BEST soliloquy's ever written when you take into account what it really means.  Beats the shit out of "John Galt Speaks" by a LONG run. (which was the ONLY part of Atlas Shrugged I did NOT enjoy because I already got the point in the previous 990 pages.)


----------



## Big Fitz

8537 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it wrong to work to _assure_ that _millions_ live in_ poverty?_
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> What kind of fucked up world do you live in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for illustrating your logical fallacy. Just because one believs one's own self interest should be served first, is not the same thing as attempting to make sure everyone else stays poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, the poster asked if its wrong to work diligently to ensure that millions live in poverty.  You should take up your complaint with him/her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with you Rand bashers is your mischaracterization of her beliefs. You equate serving one's own interests with hurting others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you Rand lovers is that you make shit up, whole cloth.  I said nothing at all similar - or in any way related - to the tripe you wrote above.
Click to expand...

The funny part is, you assumed the answer to "if its wrong to work diligently to ensure that millions live in poverty."  Is automatically 'no'.  The question is an incomplete thought if you actually read the book.

The looter meme is deep in you.

Regardless it's a fantastic hook.  Most will go with that incorrect impression, and get the shakabuken they desperately need if this movie is true to it's source.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it wrong to work to _assure_ that _millions_ live in_ poverty?_
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> What kind of fucked up world do you live in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for illustrating your logical fallacy. Just because one believs one's own self interest should be served first, is not the same thing as attempting to make sure everyone else stays poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, the poster asked if its wrong to work diligently to ensure that millions live in poverty.  You should take up your complaint with him/her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with you Rand bashers is your mischaracterization of her beliefs. You equate serving one's own interests with hurting others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you Rand lovers is that you make shit up, whole cloth.  I said nothing at all similar - or in any way related - to the tripe you wrote above.
Click to expand...


Then perhaps it's both of you that are wrong. I believe wash is being sarcastic. and I think you are being serious. The problem is the premise. IF people were attaining wealth by hurting others that would be bad, but that is not reality. The accumulation of wealth does not necessitate one hurting another.

And yes you did say that. You asked if it was wrong to assure that everyone live in povery as if there is some group of people actually doing that in this country.


----------



## 8537

Bern80 said:


> Then perhaps it's both of you that are wrong. I believe wash is being sarcastic. and I think you are being serious. The problem is the premise. IF people were attaining wealth by hurting others that would be bad, but that is not reality. The accumulation of wealth does not necessitate one hurting another.




Sometimes people (and firms) attain wealth by - or at the expense of - hurting others.


----------



## Bern80

Big Fitz said:


> I do not trust hollywood to have been faithful to the book.
> 
> I will be ecstatic if they are true to the book, it's foundational ideology and character archetypes that are the basis of this masterpiece.
> 
> Personally, if this is successful in these aspects, I hope they remake "The Fountainhead".  That book is really a triumph in a way.  A modern heroic epic that exalts the power and dignity of individualism, rather than drags it through the mud.  Ellsworth Toohey's revelation soliloquy to Peter Keating after his betrayal of Roark is one of the BEST soliloquy's ever written when you take into account what it really means.  Beats the shit out of "John Galt Speaks" by a LONG run. (which was the ONLY part of Atlas Shrugged I did NOT enjoy because I already got the point in the previous 990 pages.)



Considering I had to come here to see a trailer for it and it's release being only about a month away that suggests hollywood isn't giving it much of a push. I also saw a link on the website that says click here to get the movie in your theatre. Unfortunately I'm predicting it's going to be pretty under the radar and will go largely unnoticed. At the same time, it's lack of publicity gives me hope that it will be faithful to the book.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's both of you that are wrong. I believe wash is being sarcastic. and I think you are being serious. The problem is the premise. IF people were attaining wealth by hurting others that would be bad, but that is not reality. The accumulation of wealth does not necessitate one hurting another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes people (and firms) attain wealth by - or at the expense of - hurting others.
Click to expand...


Which if you will go back and watch the first part of the Mike Wallace interview that was posted you would see Rand opposses.


----------



## rightwinger

Atlas Shrugged has been around for 50 years and hasn't changed anything


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Atlas Shrugged has been around for 50 years and hasn't changed anything



To societies detriment.


----------



## 8537

Bern80 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps it's both of you that are wrong. I believe wash is being sarcastic. and I think you are being serious. The problem is the premise. IF people were attaining wealth by hurting others that would be bad, but that is not reality. The accumulation of wealth does not necessitate one hurting another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes people (and firms) attain wealth by - or at the expense of - hurting others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which if you will go back and watch the first part of the Mike Wallace interview that was posted you would see Rand opposses.
Click to expand...


Well it's convenient she opposed it.

What as Ayn's strategy for handling it, short of blowing up the building?


----------



## washamericom

Then perhaps it's both of you that are wrong. I believe wash is being sarcastic. and I think you are being serious. The problem is the premise. IF people were attaining wealth by hurting others that would be bad, but that is not reality. The accumulation of wealth does not necessitate one hurting another.

i was., i don't really admire stalin. there _are_ elemental details of her philosophy, like domanique francon throwing the statue down the air shaftin the opening scene, that were uncalled for. it's a movie, it's allowed to be over the top.
 rand's philosophy is  a current and relevant ideology. to say that it's been around for fifty years, but hasn't done anything is just wrong. look at the country, industry, is has become cult, much like the democrat party. kidding.
just a little while ago the president of obama borrowed the line "why, i don't think of sarah palin", which tells me he read the fountainhead (or saw the movie).
so,.. no one has mention francisco d'anconia.. the impact of miss rand's work is as contemporary, as it will be controversial. this is the one movie i've waited for.
 i even suggested the project to ron howard and martin scorsese, many years ago. i knew it had to be a film by a mega director/producer because it would take a lot of money to be good, plus the skills they would have brought.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes people (and firms) attain wealth by - or at the expense of - hurting others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which if you will go back and watch the first part of the Mike Wallace interview that was posted you would see Rand opposses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's convenient she opposed it.
> 
> What as Ayn's strategy for handling it, short of blowing up the building?
Click to expand...


While not addressed in the interview, my guess is that is what she would consider a valid use of a police force and judicial system. Just as (under her philosphy) no person has the right to obligate someone else to their survival, the same would apply to business. If a business has to force an individual to do business with them to maintain the business she would consider that wrong. If a business was damaging/confiscating/taking another's property without their consent, that would be what the judcial system is for.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sallow said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling
> 
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not expecting an apology..but..
> 
> Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet
> Ayn Rand, socialist | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> Cynical-C | Ayn Rand Received Social Security
Click to expand...


So  she used  the  benefits  the government  had forced her family  to pay for and that is your argument? she fought to get  back what was taken  and  she was broke . sorry  try again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Maple said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty"
> 
> What I believe, is that the above, like it or not, is human nature, and that ultimately, flying in the face of it with a political ideology is a futile enterprise. You can force people to behave otherwise, or at least pretend to; you cannot, however, make them like it. This is why communism failed (it cannot exist, without a tyranny to support it), and why socialism and liberalism, as advocated today, cannot long prevail in a democracy. The real world *is* dog eat dog, and most people, instinctively knowing that, live and act accordingly, regardless of what they say. Liberals know this as well as anyone (why else would they be so determined to silence or even eliminate their political opposition) and are just as ruthless in pursuit of power as anyone else, all their protestations of "unselfishness" to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captilism has brought more people up and out of poverty than any government program ever did. That's a proven fact, but then again Liberals ignore the facts. Clinton's end of welfare as we know it, propelled people out of the projects and into the middle class, you ask why? Because you either sink or you swim.
Click to expand...


Capitalism and social democracy have been responsible for lifting the masses in western society from poverty.  Stay complete, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not expecting an apology..but..
> 
> Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet
> Ayn Rand, socialist | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> Cynical-C | Ayn Rand Received Social Security
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So  she used  the  benefits  the government  had forced her family  to pay for and that is your argument? she fought to get  back what was taken  and  she was broke . sorry  try again.
Click to expand...


Fitnah, you lied, you got caught, tried to whine you way out of it with the above; you are just so typically you: a loser.


----------



## 8537

Bern80 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which if you will go back and watch the first part of the Mike Wallace interview that was posted you would see Rand opposses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's convenient she opposed it.
> 
> What as Ayn's strategy for handling it, short of blowing up the building?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While not addressed in the interview, my guess is that is what she would consider a valid use of a police force and judicial system. Just as (under her philosphy) no person has the right to obligate someone else to their survival, the same would apply to business. If a business has to force an individual to do business with them to maintain the business she would consider that wrong. If a business was damaging/confiscating/taking another's property without their consent, that would be what the judcial system is for.
Click to expand...


No, that's not the harmed party I'm thinking of.  A business can't really force you to participate in a transaction - but they can certainly harm others while you participate in the transaction.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's convenient she opposed it.
> 
> What as Ayn's strategy for handling it, short of blowing up the building?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While not addressed in the interview, my guess is that is what she would consider a valid use of a police force and judicial system. Just as (under her philosphy) no person has the right to obligate someone else to their survival, the same would apply to business. If a business has to force an individual to do business with them to maintain the business she would consider that wrong. If a business was damaging/confiscating/taking another's property without their consent, that would be what the judcial system is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not the harmed party I'm thinking of.  A business can't really force you to participate in a transaction - but they can certainly harm others while you participate in the transaction.
Click to expand...


Do have a 'for instance'?


----------



## NYcarbineer

rightwinger said:


> Atlas Shrugged has been around for 50 years and hasn't changed anything



The only thing that's changed about Atlas Shrugged is the increase in the number of conservatives who claim they've read it.


----------



## code1211

gekaap said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By making everything bogger than life and exagerated in outcome, Rand demonstrates the conclusion that she is presenting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that pretty much goes without saying.  But the conclusion she is presenting is only made possible through those exaggerations, and that's my point.  The real world, even our very politically polarized nation of today, does not exist in such pure absolutes.  There is a nearly infinite ocean of gray in a constant state of changing flux which is a major stablizer in the world.  At best, Rand shows that extreme positions lead to extreme results.  And the irony is that by resorting to the extremes she did, she succumbs to the very thing her book should have warned us against.  In the end, she moots her own message.
Click to expand...



If you view her work and thinking from the cradle of today's insulated and stabalized USA, that might a resonable conclusion.

If you view her work and thinking from the perch of the 1950's assuming that you have witnessed a world in which governments dominated their populations and literally killed opposing view points, your conclusion is the one that becomes moot.

Even in the USA which is traditionally a pretty free wheeling economy, the control exerted by the Government was stifling as the prolonged Depression demonstrates amply.  It is no accident that this trilogy of movies is seeing light now as opposed to the 90's.

If you really believe that the movers and the shakers might not continue to move and shake even when government is actively trying to stop them, you are probably confused that the American business community is sitting on Trillions of dollars of investment capital instead of investing it.

Atlas Shrugged.


----------



## 8537

Bern80 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While not addressed in the interview, my guess is that is what she would consider a valid use of a police force and judicial system. Just as (under her philosphy) no person has the right to obligate someone else to their survival, the same would apply to business. If a business has to force an individual to do business with them to maintain the business she would consider that wrong. If a business was damaging/confiscating/taking another's property without their consent, that would be what the judcial system is for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not the harmed party I'm thinking of.  A business can't really force you to participate in a transaction - but they can certainly harm others while you participate in the transaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do have a 'for instance'?
Click to expand...


For instance, people who live next door to a petroleum refinery and face higher cancer rates.


----------



## 8537

code1211 said:


> If you really believe that the movers and the shakers might not continue to move and shake even when government is actively trying to stop them, you are probably confused that the American business community is sitting on Trillions of dollars of investment capital instead of investing it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged.




You believe the business community is sitting on trillions (it's not the business community, by the way, it's the financial sector) because they are removing themselves from society?

I'm pretty sure it's because they need the reserves and are being paid to hold them.


----------



## washamericom

NYcarbineer said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has been around for 50 years and hasn't changed anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that's changed about Atlas Shrugged is the increase in the number of conservatives who claim they've read it.
Click to expand...


well i guess the jig is up. you've foiled our 53 year old conspiracy to "trick the liberals of the left" into thinking we've actually _read _the book, and just before the movie came out... dammit.... we almost made it you guys...  now what.... ? 

oooh popcorn.


----------



## gekaap

You know, on a scarcely related note, when I read the book and imagined what it might look like on the big screen, I always saw Julia Stiles playing Dagny.  And the nerdy son from That 70s Show as her brother.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not the harmed party I'm thinking of.  A business can't really force you to participate in a transaction - but they can certainly harm others while you participate in the transaction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do have a 'for instance'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For instance, people who live next door to a petroleum refinery and face higher cancer rates.
Click to expand...


And you think Rand would not have had a problem with that?


----------



## 8537

Bern80 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do have a 'for instance'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, people who live next door to a petroleum refinery and face higher cancer rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think Rand would not have had a problem with that?
Click to expand...


I didn't ask you if she had a problem with it.  I asked what her strategy would be for handling it.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, people who live next door to a petroleum refinery and face higher cancer rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think Rand would not have had a problem with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you if she had a problem with it.  I asked what her strategy would be for handling it.
Click to expand...


I think she would advise that it be handled through the legal system. A business doesn't have the right to harm another individual any more than an individual does.


----------



## washamericom

gekaap said:


> You know, on a scarcely related note, when I read the book and imagined what it might look like on the big screen, I always saw Julia Stiles playing Dagny.  And the nerdy son from That 70s Show as her brother.



i'd see anything with julia stiles, she's awesome and would make a great dagny..
nancy pelosi could play "Mr. Thompson"


----------



## cutter

Big Fitz said:


> I do not trust hollywood to have been faithful to the book.
> 
> I will be ecstatic if they are true to the book, it's foundational ideology and character archetypes that are the basis of this masterpiece.
> 
> Personally, if this is successful in these aspects, I hope they remake "The Fountainhead".  That book is really a triumph in a way.  A modern heroic epic that exalts the power and dignity of individualism, rather than drags it through the mud.  Ellsworth Toohey's revelation soliloquy to Peter Keating after his betrayal of Roark is one of the BEST soliloquy's ever written when you take into account what it really means.  Beats the shit out of "John Galt Speaks" by a LONG run. (which was the ONLY part of Atlas Shrugged I did NOT enjoy because I already got the point in the previous 990 pages.)



It's  funny, I've heard almost nothing about Atlas Shrugged, which should be a great film, But I see Battle For L.A. advertised on T.V. 3 or 4 times a day. I bet it doesn't get near the advertising it should.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty"
> 
> What I believe, is that the above, like it or not, is human nature, and that ultimately, flying in the face of it with a political ideology is a futile enterprise. You can force people to behave otherwise, or at least pretend to; you cannot, however, make them like it. This is why communism failed (it cannot exist, without a tyranny to support it), and why socialism and liberalism, as advocated today, cannot long prevail in a democracy. The real world *is* dog eat dog, and most people, instinctively knowing that, live and act accordingly, regardless of what they say. Liberals know this as well as anyone (why else would they be so determined to silence or even eliminate their political opposition) and are just as ruthless in pursuit of power as anyone else, all their protestations of "unselfishness" to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captilism has brought more people up and out of poverty than any government program ever did. That's a proven fact, but then again Liberals ignore the facts. Clinton's end of welfare as we know it, propelled people out of the projects and into the middle class, you ask why? Because you either sink or you swim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism and social democracy have been responsible for lifting the masses in western society from poverty.  Stay complete, please.
Click to expand...


America is not a social democracy nor is it a democratic Republic, it's a Constitutional Republic.  We are a Constitutional Republic because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Plasmaball said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not expecting an apology..but..
> 
> Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet
> Ayn Rand, socialist | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> Cynical-C | Ayn Rand Received Social Security
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So  she used  the  benefits  the government  had forced her family  to pay for and that is your argument? she fought to get  back what was taken  and  she was broke . sorry  try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i knew you would just make up an excuse. What a partisan fuck
Click to expand...


You have something against recouping loses  ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> Captilism has brought more people up and out of poverty than any government program ever did. That's a proven fact, but then again Liberals ignore the facts. Clinton's end of welfare as we know it, propelled people out of the projects and into the middle class, you ask why? Because you either sink or you swim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism and social democracy have been responsible for lifting the masses in western society from poverty.  Stay complete, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America is not a social democracy nor is it a democratic Republic, it's a Constitutional Republic.  We are a Constitutional Republic because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
Click to expand...


Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement.  Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic.  Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people.  You with me on this?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism and social democracy have been responsible for lifting the masses in western society from poverty.  Stay complete, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is not a social democracy nor is it a democratic Republic, it's a Constitutional Republic.  We are a Constitutional Republic because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement.  Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic.  Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republican is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people.  You with me on this?
Click to expand...

Do you really want a mob rule? After isn't that what a democracy is? Imagine 51 percent of the people like me in charge. Change the laws as we please.  I would repeal the NFA kill the military and place it back in the hands of the citizens militia.Just 51 percent.


----------



## editec

rightwinger said:


> Atlas Shrugged has been around for 50 years and hasn't changed anything


 
Not true.

It became the central literary apology for FASCISM.

Greespann claims in his bio that he read the book (when he was in his 30s?!...what an illiterate man he must be) and it changed his perception of economics.

Now THAT is a frightening thought.

Of course I don't believe him, either.

I think at best all that book did was give him a book to point to that he knows economic ingoramouses thinks is intelligent.

I think he was a corporatist long before he ever heard of Atlas Shrugged.


----------



## editec

I see very little evidence on this board that most of you who claim this book and think it is your idea of a brilliant social commentary ever read it.

I think many of you know the Title, know that your masters told you it is brilliant and are trying to fake you love for it on this board.

Some of you so self-proclaiming cons  have read it, no doubt, but I doubt all of you here testifying how good it is really did.

Becase as many of you proved to me time after time that you don't read much of anything, I seriously doubt many of you waded though that deadingly boring, bloated  politically science screed.

_Truner Dairies_, that's I'd believe most of you cons might wade through.

But Atlas Shrugged?

Not a chance.




I think many of you so called freedom loving cons are basically liars.


----------



## code1211

Bern80 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do have a 'for instance'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, people who live next door to a petroleum refinery and face higher cancer rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think Rand would not have had a problem with that?
Click to expand...



Out of curiosity, did the people live there and shortly afterward a petroleum company bought the lot next door or did the refinery have a business going and the people next door moved in.

Just wondering.


----------



## LostAmerican

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.


 
When I was in high school, I spend most of my time worrying about getting killed in Vietnam.

Big government, small government.......the only government that should survive is one the people are willing to die for, not simply desire because it will put more money in their pocket.


----------



## code1211

editec said:


> I see very little evidence on this board that most of you who claim this book and think it is your idea of a brilliant social commentary ever read it.
> 
> I think many of you know the Title, know that your masters told you it is brilliant and are trying to fake you love for it on this board.
> 
> Some of you so self-proclaiming cons  have read it, no doubt, but I doubt all of you here testifying how good it is really did.
> 
> Becase as many of you proved to me time after time that you don't read much of anything, I seriously doubt many of you waded though that deadingly boring, bloated  politically science screed.
> 
> _Truner Dairies_, that's I'd believe most of you cons might wade through.
> 
> But Atlas Shrugged?
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think many of you so called freedom loving cons are basically liars.




Way'll, now that them Godless and sex drove Hollywood perverts are finally making a Talkie 'bout thet thar ol' book, mebe wheel git ta read the signs in the beckground.

Wooda red the Bible, 2, butt I watched Charlton Heston 'stead.

Ah hope they have some nice titties in this thing.  Kin ah brang mah gun ta the thayatar after church?


----------



## Sallow

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not expecting an apology..but..
> 
> Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet
> Ayn Rand, socialist | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> Cynical-C | Ayn Rand Received Social Security
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So  she used  the  benefits  the government  had forced her family  to pay for and that is your argument? she fought to get  back what was taken  and  she was broke . sorry  try again.
Click to expand...


You called me a liar and a troll. I posted links for you.

Man up and apologize.


----------



## gekaap

LostAmerican said:


> When I was in high school, I spend most of my time worrying about getting killed in Vietnam.
> 
> Big government, small government.......the only government that should survive is one the people are willing to die for, not simply desire because it will put more money in their pocket.



I doubt there's any government very many people are willing to die for.  If you ask combat vets, they'll tell that what they're REALLY willing to die for is the person on their left and the person on their right.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sallow said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not expecting an apology..but..
> 
> Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet
> Ayn Rand, socialist | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> Cynical-C | Ayn Rand Received Social Security
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So  she used  the  benefits  the government  had forced her family  to pay for and that is your argument? she fought to get  back what was taken  and  she was broke . sorry  try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You called me a liar and a troll. I posted links for you.
> 
> Man up and apologize.
Click to expand...


You are a troll and a liar, your  links are a fail .
You said  she died broke prove it.


----------



## editec

8537 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believe that the movers and the shakers might not continue to move and shake even when government is actively trying to stop them, you are probably confused that the American business community is sitting on Trillions of dollars of investment capital instead of investing it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe the business community is sitting on trillions (it's not the business community, by the way, it's the financial sector) because they are removing themselves from society?
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's because they need the reserves and are being paid to hold them.
Click to expand...

 
No he's right.

Major corporations in the USA are sitting on something like 4 trillion dollars in cash.

They're not putting people to work because they know that the people don't have money to spend.

Given their responsibility is to invest for fature profits, I can't blame them for not hiring new workers.

The working class is tapped out.

The working class is also the consumer class.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Call me crazy, but I'm going to predict that this movie will not change the face of American politics.


----------



## Toro

geauxtohell said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..but instead of refusing the help of the Government..she did like the masses she so demonized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she died for her art...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She died because she had a 100 pack year habit and got lung cancer.
> 
> Medicare picked up the bill for her treatment.
> 
> True story.
Click to expand...


The ultimate irony is that when it became known that smoking caused cancer, she believed it was a government plot to spread disinformation and attack private industry.  Rand was suspicious of and looked down upon those around her who didn't smoke.

As for the movie, thank God it is being directed by Hollywood.  Rand directed The Fountainhead.  It was awful.  Her core philosophy was to be true to thyself and accept no compromise to your vision.  So she did just that, insisted she direct the movie, and it bombed.


----------



## Toro

code1211 said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> todays conservative political leaders do NOT want smaller government.
> 
> they want LAWS!
> 
> and LAWS mean BIG GOVERNMENT.
> 
> newt gingrich "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our (christian) religious beliefs
> and see to iit that they can NEVER BE CHANGED AGAIN"
> 
> tell me.....
> how can you wage war on gays and atheists and liberals without big government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You suffer from a misconception.  You think that a person who claims to be Conservative is a Conservative.
> 
> If a person wants to draw power to the central government, expand the influence of government on the lives of private citizens or wants to take the money and property rights of Private Citizens, that person is NOT a Conservative.
> 
> If a person departs from laws and proceeds to personal whims to achieve his ends, he is not a Conservative.  If he runs up the public debt for self agrandisement or unfunded whimsey in the face of real needs elsewhere, he is not a conservative.
> 
> We haven't had many Conservatives in this country in positions of power because the idiots who vote seem to prefer bribes to leadership.  Sadly, in a Democracy, people get exactly the government that they deserve.  This being the case, we are, as a country, screwed.
> 
> All of that said though, regardless of what anyone calls himself, he is a Conservative based only on what he does, not on what he says.
Click to expand...


You are confusing conservatives with libertarians.

Conservative has no problem using government to enforce their ideas.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:

*My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*

Anyone?


----------



## Toro

Sallow said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling
> 
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not expecting an apology..but..
> 
> Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet
> Ayn Rand, socialist | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> Cynical-C | Ayn Rand Received Social Security
Click to expand...


There is a thread on this somewhere. 

I have no problem with Rand taking SS and Medicare.  If you are _forced_ to pay into it, you have every right to take it back out.  It's tantamount to the government taking your house away and a decade later, you taking it back.  

It would be a different story if Medicare and SS were voluntary, but they are not.


----------



## Toro

NYcarbineer said:


> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> &#8212;Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?



I've often wondered about self-described conservatives who claim to admire Ayn Rand.  You can also boil down Rand's philosophy as 

"Fuck as many people as you want, even if you are married, if that makes you happy."

I have a hard time reconciling that with American conservatism.  (Well, maybe not Newt Gingrich!)


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is not a social democracy nor is it a democratic Republic, it's a Constitutional Republic.  We are a Constitutional Republic because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement.  Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic.  Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republican is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people.  You with me on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really want a mob rule? After isn't that what a democracy is? Imagine 51 percent of the people like me in charge. Change the laws as we please.  I would repeal the NFA kill the military and place it back in the hands of the citizens militia.Just 51 percent.
Click to expand...


Our representatives (republicanism) generally are elected democratically, with certain exceptions such as the Electoral College.  Which you know.  But you are not interested in the constitutional republic, but only power.


----------



## washamericom

editec said:


> I see very little evidence on this board that most of you who claim this book and think it is your idea of a brilliant social commentary ever read it.
> 
> I think many of you know the Title, know that your masters told you it is brilliant and are trying to fake you love for it on this board.
> 
> Some of you so self-proclaiming cons  have read it, no doubt, but I doubt all of you here testifying how good it is really did.
> 
> Becase as many of you proved to me time after time that you don't read much of anything, I seriously doubt many of you waded though that deadingly boring, bloated  politically science screed.
> 
> _Truner Dairies_, that's I'd believe most of you cons might wade through.
> 
> But Atlas Shrugged?
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think many of you so called freedom loving cons are basically liars.





ask me anything... i don't know your "truner diaries" 

have you read it ? are you saying it's a bad book/philosophy ?


----------



## Big Fitz

NYcarbineer said:


> Call me crazy, but I'm going to predict that this movie will not change the face of American politics.


In this one respect, I'm siding with NYC here.  I think they're right on this one.

BUT, if this movie somehow catches the public zeitgeist, it will not change politics on it's own.  It will change something more important, public philosophy and national identity.

Both of those changes, down the line, will alter the nation.

Chances are slim, but it's how these things change.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling
> 
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not expecting an apology..but..
> 
> Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet
> Ayn Rand, socialist | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> Cynical-C | Ayn Rand Received Social Security
Click to expand...


It never says she took it.


> A heavy smoker, Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974. Although she had long opposed government assistance programs, she wrote that it is perfectly moral to accept Social Security and Medicare, given the coercion used to collect the resources for such programs and the widespread impoverishment that results


Ayn Rand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then again if it's your claim shes a hypocrite then obama would lead the way Bush three the remake.


----------



## washamericom

NYcarbineer said:


> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> &#8212;Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?



i have found that in life; sometimes it will take more than five minutes to absorb the essece of a philosophy or religion, or really, any complex theory. do you feel left out because you never read it and everyone is talking about it? or have you copped an undisciplined uninformed attitude. if you feel left out than good, that was th essence of my original post. if you don't read it because conservatives like it, isn't that the same as refusing to watch fox news.? you've got to love yourself before you can love another.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The creature who at his center who he worships is himself indeed is a creature catastrophically doomed to moral and mental destruction.  Ayn Rand simply had problems playing with others so she justified her isolationism from other human beings.  She, and those who worship her, are to be pitied.


----------



## washamericom

JakeStarkey said:


> The creature who at his center who he worships is himself is a creature catastrophically doomed to moral and mental destruction.  Ayn Rand simply had problems playing with others so she justified her isolationism from other human beings.  She, and those who worship her, are to be pitied.



nobody said worship, can you think of any recent examples in u.s. political history where adornment played a role in it's apparent success ?
i think it's more like projection of self esteem and confidence.


----------



## Misty

Atlas has been shrugging for a long time now. The more the government interferes with regulations and taxes, businesses have been moving to Galt's Gulch for decades and will continue to do so in order to run their companies their way not the governments way. 

Unfortunately Galt's Gulch is china and India   

If America wants to bring prosperity back to the people of this country, they need to "get out of the way" and let America prosper and stop obstructing companies' abilities to produce and not be held back by redtape and government greed of wanting money they did not earn to give to other people that did not earn it just so they can control everything and everyone.


----------



## NYcarbineer

washamericom said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have found that in life; sometimes it will take more than five minutes to absorb the essece of a philosophy or religion, or really, any complex theory. do you feel left out because you never read it and everyone is talking about it? or have you copped an undisciplined uninformed attitude. if you feel left out than good, that was th essence of my original post. if you don't read it because conservatives like it, isn't that the same as refusing to watch fox news.? you've got to love yourself before you can love another.
Click to expand...


I would like to know for starters how a philosophy that has as one of its core principles a summary rejection of religion is in any way compatible with modern American mainstream conservatism.


----------



## NYcarbineer

washamericom said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> &#8212;Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have found that in life; sometimes it will take more than five minutes to absorb the essece of a philosophy or religion, or really, any complex theory. do you feel left out because you never read it and everyone is talking about it? or have you copped an undisciplined uninformed attitude. if you feel left out than good, that was th essence of my original post. if you don't read it because conservatives like it, isn't that the same as refusing to watch fox news.? you've got to love yourself before you can love another.
Click to expand...


I don't have to read the whole Bible to know that it's wrong to claim that the Earth was made in 6 days.


----------



## Misty

NYcarbineer said:


> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?




"Productive achievement as his noblest activity". This is surely not what liberals want. They want money from the productive activity to give to those without productive activity.


----------



## Big Fitz

> Unfortunately Galt's Gulch is china and India



Actually, it's not.  That's just a honey trap by the looters who are building up a larder.  Socialists in China will begin to feast as soon as they see it necessary.  India is becoming too unstable to remain a safe haven for long with all the agitation in the middle east.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Misty said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Productive achievement as his noblest activity". This is surely not what liberals want. They want money from the productive activity to give to those without productive activity.
Click to expand...


'his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life'...

...what if one is most happy when one is also unproductive?


----------



## Big Fitz

Misty said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Productive achievement as his noblest activity". This is surely not what liberals want. They want money from the productive activity to give to those without productive activity.
Click to expand...

Regardless of why they are non-productive... particularly if THEY are non-productive.  Getting paid for nothing is awesome.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



Life today is a lot more complicated than when Ayn Rand was struggling to put her ideologies to fiction. The most glaring part of that fact is the global financial carnage that resulted not from too much government intervention, but too little. "Capitalism" run amok constituted a recipe for disaster, and we're still feeling the pain today. 

As for the movie, I'm sure it will be good. I enjoyed the book (along with The Fountainhead) when they were must reads _for the times_. As for it playing a roll in unseating Obama, I seriously doubt that. Dream on. If he is "unseated," it won't be because of right wing ideologies being resurrected because of Ayn Rand. It will be because he is blamed for trying to find the middle ground between capitalism and necessary government regulation that keeps capitalism from running over the majority of Americans who are just trying to make a decent living and hold on to their God given places in society.


----------



## Misty

I think this sums up why conservatives like "Atlas Shrugged. 

Directive 10-289,

"Point One served two purposes: to establish the Unification Board, and to require that all persons presently employed, stay employed in their present capacities. The age of twenty-one was selected because that was the voting age at the time. (The voting age remained at twenty-one until the first term of the Richard Nixon administration, during which time Amendment XXVI formally set the voting age at eighteen.)

Point Two was a direct response to the phenomenon of people quitting and vanishing. This was the real reason for the economic decline, as the bureaucrats half suspected, half feared. Under this point, anyone who quit and vanished faced arrest, imprisonment, and expropriation of his assets.

Point Three provided for the surrender of all intellectual property of any kind to the government. This point actually directed that holders of patents and copyrights voluntary surrender their rights, clearly an oxymoron.

Point Four simply provided that no new inventions were to be introduced for the duration. Wesley Mouch and his associates regarded new inventions as destructive of people's livelihoods.

Point Five attempted to freeze all industrial or commercial output at present levels. For the purpose of determining those levels, the Directive declared a very special fiscal year to be the year ending on the date of the Directive, which was May 1.

Point Six attempted to freeze consumer spending at the levels seen in the fiscal year ending on the date of the Directive, as Point Five had done for business output.

Point Seven was an indefinite wage and price freeze.

Point Eight, the "elastic point," vested in the Unification Board the power to decide, finally and not subject to appeal, any question not covered in Points One through Seven.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver.  Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.  One thing I found very curious is Rand's inconsistent portrayal of the general public and public sentiment.  On one hand she portrays the public as knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.  But when it suits her she subsequently portrays the public as mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> Rand's proper characters, both antagonists and protagonists alike, are written as if being embodies metaphors for the supreme purity of concepts Rand wished to present.  This makes them believable in the Rand universe similar to how Gollum is a believable character within the LOTR universe, but unbelievable as characters that might exist in reality.  While Rand does an excellent job of presenting a thoroughly thought out narrative and maintains a steady pace of developing the complexity of the plot as the story unfolds, in the end the plot itself, its developments, and Rand's suggestion about how our world might go if we so allowed it, only exists because it was so written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incredible... you get it... this is gold... you have single handedly defined "the american people"
> 
> liberals:  mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> conservatives:  knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.
> 
> *i'm taking this to madison*
Click to expand...


*Don't quit your day job.* You left out that conservatives generally are CEOs of major corporations who are *ONLY* interested in profit, and fuck the workers who help them get there. _This kind of attitude was rare in Ayn Rand's day, by the way._ Also, I don't see anyone "abandoning their jobs" today because of 'ideology'.   Those same CEOs *eliminate* jobs in order to hire cheap labor across the pond or import technical talent using H-IB visas. Hello?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement.  Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic.  Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republican is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people.  You with me on this?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want a mob rule? After isn't that what a democracy is? Imagine 51 percent of the people like me in charge. Change the laws as we please.  I would repeal the NFA kill the military and place it back in the hands of the citizens militia.Just 51 percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our representatives (republicanism) generally are elected democratically, with certain exceptions such as the Electoral College.  Which you know.  But you are not interested in the constitutional republic, but only power.
Click to expand...




> But you are not interested in the constitutional republic, but only power



REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.


----------



## Modbert

jillian said:


> "Book" isn't a proper noun in the above sentence and shouldn't be capitalized.



Well some of them do consider it their bible.


----------



## Modbert

geauxtohell said:


> She died because she had a 100 pack year habit and got lung cancer.
> 
> Medicare picked up the bill for her treatment.
> 
> True story.



And she thought that lung cancer was just an American plot to hurt corporations.

True story.


----------



## MaggieMae

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The Book has been a fool proof indicator  of intelligence. Idiots hate it. Nuff said.



That bothers me, too, but for a different reason. I don't think there's enough intelligence representing the right to make a dent. How many people will just take what YOU and others who do have intelligence and just jump on the bandwagon without having a clue? It has all the possibilities of creating yet another "movement," this one of faux intellectuals carrying guns and stocking up on weapons for the eventual takeover of the government. THINKING by modern extremists isn't often practiced.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> mr.fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> the book has been a fool proof indicator  of intelligence. Idiots hate it. Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true... Another good test of intelligence is when someone wears headphones, do they yell when they try to talk to you ? It's because they can't hear themselves, and can't compensate
> 
> How about when you're driving and you're trying to see out the passenger window when you are about to pull out... If they lean forward at the same time you do...
> 
> Liberal idiots get all trotsky when the book gets mentioned
Click to expand...


Yes, only liberals use headphones and talk loud. Dumb shit. This is why I, personally, can never take you people seriously.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.



I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"

Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?


----------



## washamericom

bill gates, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg... only interested in profit... howard hughs, the rockefellers...?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
> 
> Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
Click to expand...


Democracy majority rule mob rule
conflicts with
Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
BUB


----------



## Misty

NYcarbineer said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> "Productive achievement as his noblest activity". This is surely not what liberals want. They want money from the productive activity to give to those without productive activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life'...
> 
> ...what if one is most happy when one is also unproductive?
Click to expand...


she believed that man should be happy by being productive

if one is happy being non productive then in her mind, he is neither noble nor heroic. 

It's a conservative philosophy so it doesn't work if you don't share her belief that being productive includes being happy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are ignoring the constitutional and factual reality that "(2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. "

Americans will not permit militia soviets, bigreb, in the U.S., because that is what you are implying.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have long been an Ayn Rand advocate and supporter. There is a movie based on one of her books, "The Fountainhead" and I loved watching it 3 times, from Netflix.  Some great actors. Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal ( in her debut performance). HOT movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humm...I've never heard of this movie, I'm going to have to check it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the fountainhead is awesome too, there aren't too many movies i'll watch in black and white.
> she didn't write many novels.  we the living...
> you might also check out some of the interviews with ayn...
> 
> 
> live television...
Click to expand...


Oh dear, for someone so interested in reconnecting the past and applying it to the present, you don't like to watch black and white movies? I'm shocked. Do you realize before I-Phones, there were landlines with _<gasp>_ telephone numbers we had to force ourselves to DIAL? And before that, Bell Telephone employed thousands of people across the world just to connect us? We actually had to talk to an operator. "America" is rich in history, not just your selected versions of it. The film archives hold thousands of black and white movies which send political messages. Perhaps you should check a few out. But I'm sure they won't _all_ please your own brand of modern politics.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You are ignoring the constitutional and factual reality that "(2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. "
> 
> Americans will not permit militia soviets, bigreb, in the U.S., because that is what you are implying.





bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
> 
> Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy majority rule mob rule
> conflicts with
> Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
> BUB
Click to expand...

No here's what I am implying ^^^^^^^^^


----------



## MaggieMae

Sallow said:


> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.



So did my ex-husband who was uber conservative. Even before he got sick, however, that didn't stop him from gaming the system whenever he could, i.e., applying for an additional Social Security card so he could work under the table and only declare the meager income he did have to report, then write-off made up expenses. Yeah, he was a real piece of work, but Nixon and Reagan were his HEROES!! When he did get sick, he not only got food stamps, MediCal coverage and utilities assistance, but his rent was subsidized. I suspect if my ex-husband were still alive, he'd be one of those Californians screaming his head off over how much in debt the California government is because of those goddamned slackers living off welfare.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty
> 
> is that so wrong ?



It is. The Constitution begins with WE THE PEOPLE, not WE the SELECT FEW.


----------



## Wry Catcher

I suggest everyone read this link before seeing the movie or reading Ayn Rand; this link is short, somewhat difficult, but provides a background for framing an opinion and or voting based on a work of art or one author's subjective world view.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/#SSH1b.i

Start at the top of the link, I don't know why when opened the link goes to the middle of the article.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jefferson died broke, so did jesus i think... makes sense to me.
Click to expand...


At least their consciences were clear.


----------



## Modbert

washamericom said:


> jefferson died broke, so did jesus i think... makes sense to me.



You just compared Ayn Rand to Jesus. Never mind Jefferson. Think about that for a moment.


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver.  Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.  One thing I found very curious is Rand's inconsistent portrayal of the general public and public sentiment.  On one hand she portrays the public as knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.  But when it suits her she subsequently portrays the public as mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> Rand's proper characters, both antagonists and protagonists alike, are written as if being embodies metaphors for the supreme purity of concepts Rand wished to present.  This makes them believable in the Rand universe similar to how Gollum is a believable character within the LOTR universe, but unbelievable as characters that might exist in reality.  While Rand does an excellent job of presenting a thoroughly thought out narrative and maintains a steady pace of developing the complexity of the plot as the story unfolds, in the end the plot itself, its developments, and Rand's suggestion about how our world might go if we so allowed it, only exists because it was so written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incredible... you get it... this is gold... you have single handedly defined "the american people"
> 
> liberals:  mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> conservatives:  knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.
> 
> *i'm taking this to madison*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Don't quit your day job.* You left out that conservatives generally are CEOs of major corporations who are *ONLY* interested in profit, and fuck the workers who help them get there. _This kind of attitude was rare in Ayn Rand's day, by the way._ Also, I don't see anyone "abandoning their jobs" today because of 'ideology'.   Those same CEOs *eliminate* jobs in order to hire cheap labor across the pond or import technical talent using H-IB visas. Hello?
Click to expand...


this _*is *_my day job mm


----------



## washamericom

Modbert said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> jefferson died broke, so did jesus i think... makes sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just compared Ayn Rand to Jesus. Never mind Jefferson. Think about that for a moment.
Click to expand...


your point. here's one... how does ayn rand differ from barrak obama ?


----------



## MaggieMae

code1211 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver.  Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.  One thing I found very curious is Rand's inconsistent portrayal of the general public and public sentiment.  On one hand she portrays the public as knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.  But when it suits her she subsequently portrays the public as mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is a work of fiction you know. Rand had a world view just as you have a world view. The reason it failed to deliver for you is because those world views don't line up. It isn't because her world view is wrong and your's is right. And I don't recall any inconsistency in her portrayal of the public. There wasn't a majority singular view of the general public because that isn't reality. Some people had one set of beliefs while other had another just like the real world. Believe it or not the majority of the country is not liberal. This country is split ideologically pretty much 50/50.
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand's proper characters, both antagonists and protagonists alike, are written as if being embodies metaphors for the supreme purity of concepts Rand wished to present.  This makes them believable in the Rand universe similar to how Gollum is a believable character within the LOTR universe, but unbelievable as characters that might exist in reality.  While Rand does an excellent job of presenting a thoroughly thought out narrative and maintains a steady pace of developing the complexity of the plot as the story unfolds, in the end the plot itself, its developments, and Rand's suggestion about how our world might go if we so allowed it, only exists because it was so written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary what happened in the book very much parllels what is really happening. In the book the producers and manufacturers decided they were tired of being dictated to by overzealous and derisive elements of society......so they left. The only difference is instead of the people leaving to form their own society with the rules they want, they are leaving to other countries to produce what they want.
> 
> The point I got from the book is this is what will happen if bearucrats keep punishing the producers, those that provide jobs, and generally treating them as evil and regulating them as such. Those producers may just decide to take their proverbial 'ball' and go elsehwere and then you'll be sorry when there aren't more jobs and there isn't anyone willing to produce the thing you wanted all the while deriding the peope that produced it as evil. That isn't a fairy tale ending. That indeed can and in many cases already has happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone feels like they're being abused, they have the choice to continue to take it or to leave.  If that person is an employee, they quit and find a new job.
> 
> If that person is a mover and shaker, they will do what is required.  Companies move to new cities, to new countries or take as much abuse as they can and then go out of business.
> 
> Governments who provide enough abuse to those who drive the economy will find that those who are driving things will vanish from the scene.  This not a fantasy.  It's a cautionary tale.
Click to expand...


I'd like to see a list somewhere of all those companies/corporations which were "forced" to move out of the country because of higher taxes or to avoid government regulations and not because they could take advantage of cheap labor or operate in a country that doesn't care about pollution (for example). There are companies who move to a different state because of high STATE taxes, but moving out of the country means just one thing: Corporate greed which benefits _only_ the upper echelon of those companies.


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humm...I've never heard of this movie, I'm going to have to check it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the fountainhead is awesome too, there aren't too many movies i'll watch in black and white.
> she didn't write many novels.  we the living...
> you might also check out some of the interviews with ayn...
> 
> 
> live television...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dear, for someone so interested in reconnecting the past and applying it to the present, you don't like to watch black and white movies? I'm shocked. Do you realize before I-Phones, there were landlines with _<gasp>_ telephone numbers we had to force ourselves to DIAL? And before that, Bell Telephone employed thousands of people across the world just to connect us? We actually had to talk to an operator. "America" is rich in history, not just your selected versions of it. The film archives hold thousands of black and white movies which send political messages. Perhaps you should check a few out. But I'm sure they won't _all_ please your own brand of modern politics.
Click to expand...


seems a little consescending...


----------



## washamericom

JakeStarkey said:


> You are ignoring the constitutional and factual reality that "(2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. "
> 
> Americans will not permit militia soviets, bigreb, in the U.S., because that is what you are implying.



Section 4.


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> There is a nearly infinite ocean of gray in a constant state of changing flux which is a major stablizer in the world.
> 
> what ?  i mean... huh ?



Odd that you didn't get that. I was going to highlight it myself as being the only "absolute" left. Like it or not, just about everything we do now is affected by global pressures, not just reaction/proaction to what happens in the tiny hamlets where we live, unless you choose to live in a tent on a mountaintop that is living solely off the land. Connecting dots now involves a huge global matrix.


----------



## MaggieMae

gekaap said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> what ?  i mean... huh ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean the world is not a simple place of this good, that bad, him left, her right.  We do not live in a world where all people's attitudes, beliefs, actions, etc. tightly revolve around the the poles.  We live in a world where Republicans support abortion rights and Democrats support tougher border security.  We live in a society that dislikes when people revolve around those poles; we call such people extremists and with the exception of those extremists themselves we universally reject extremism.
Click to expand...


Well that too. Forgive me for getting too Randian with my own explanation!


----------



## MaggieMae

The Gadfly said:


> "you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty"
> 
> What I believe, is that the above, like it or not, is human nature, and that ultimately, flying in the face of it with a political ideology is a futile enterprise. You can force people to behave otherwise, or at least pretend to; you cannot, however, make them like it. This is why communism failed (it cannot exist, without a tyranny to support it), and why socialism and liberalism, as advocated today, cannot long prevail in a democracy. The real world *is* dog eat dog, and most people, instinctively knowing that, live and act accordingly, regardless of what they say. Liberals know this as well as anyone (why else would they be so determined to silence or even eliminate their political opposition) and are just as ruthless in pursuit of power as anyone else, all their protestations of "unselfishness" to the contrary.



I truly feel sorry for people who think and act as though we should _accept_ a dog-eat-dog mentality. I also wonder every day of my life whatever happened to the conscience of many Americans. I always thought we all were born with empathy. But apparently that's another link in the chain of evolution that got dropped somewhere along the way, and I for one am damned glad I missed that break in the chain.


----------



## Big Fitz

Misty said:


> I think this sums up why conservatives like "Atlas Shrugged.
> 
> Directive 10-289,
> 
> "Point One served two purposes: to establish the Unification Board, and to require that all persons presently employed, stay employed in their present capacities. The age of twenty-one was selected because that was the voting age at the time. (The voting age remained at twenty-one until the first term of the Richard Nixon administration, during which time Amendment XXVI formally set the voting age at eighteen.)
> 
> Point Two was a direct response to the phenomenon of people quitting and vanishing. This was the real reason for the economic decline, as the bureaucrats half suspected, half feared. Under this point, anyone who quit and vanished faced arrest, imprisonment, and expropriation of his assets.
> 
> Point Three provided for the surrender of all intellectual property of any kind to the government. This point actually directed that holders of patents and copyrights voluntary surrender their rights, clearly an oxymoron.
> 
> Point Four simply provided that no new inventions were to be introduced for the duration. Wesley Mouch and his associates regarded new inventions as destructive of people's livelihoods.
> 
> Point Five attempted to freeze all industrial or commercial output at present levels. For the purpose of determining those levels, the Directive declared a very special fiscal year to be the year ending on the date of the Directive, which was May 1.
> 
> Point Six attempted to freeze consumer spending at the levels seen in the fiscal year ending on the date of the Directive, as Point Five had done for business output.
> 
> Point Seven was an indefinite wage and price freeze.
> 
> Point Eight, the "elastic point," vested in the Unification Board the power to decide, finally and not subject to appeal, any question not covered in Points One through Seven.



Distilled further:

1. Recreate the caste or at least feudal/vassalage system of society.

2. Criminalize non participation in slavery and punish them with hard labor if possible.

3. Socialize all property and force the owners to divulge all intellectual secrets.

4. End creativity.

5 & 6. Plan the economic output and needs of the world and criminalize anyone who disrupts the plan on paper.

7. End all currency and methods of exchange that use 'value'.  Need will be determined and assigned by government.

8. Recreate total monarchs with the power of life and death in all things.

How much similarity do you see with the goals of liberalism and this distillation?  If not a vast majority, you need to open your eyes.


----------



## MaggieMae

Maple said:


> I can't wait until this movie comes out, France would not allow it to be written in the French language, they certainly felt threatened by it, but they should as it shows the evils of socialism. I think Obama needs to read it.
> 
> I hope that all of you conservatives and independents take your voting age children to see this movie. It will change them from mush heads that believe anything they hear and see and turn them into critical thinkers of government policy and the fallacies that are being promoted today by a very liberal bunch of mush heads who happen to be in the executive office.
> 
> I hear it was a businessman that invested 10 million dollars to make this movie. Please pass this information on to all of your contacts and urge them to see it. It makes you think and think critically.



Obama probably read it many years ago. Ironically, depending on the age of the children, they may come away from the movie scratching their heads and asking mommy whether or not daddy plans to quit his job just so he can make a point, or if daddy _does_ quit his job, how will I eat? Will I still be able to get a new I-Pod?


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> what ?  i mean... huh ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean the world is not a simple place of this good, that bad, him left, her right.  We do not live in a world where all people's attitudes, beliefs, actions, etc. tightly revolve around the the poles.  We live in a world where Republicans support abortion rights and Democrats support tougher border security.  We live in a society that dislikes when people revolve around those poles; we call such people extremists and with the exception of those extremists themselves we universally reject extremism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that too. Forgive me for getting too Randian with my own explanation!
Click to expand...


that's funny, i can aleways count on you for a good discussion.

what if i said we live in a world where democrats deny right to life.
but i think in the case of the movie, it's more about business than abortion.


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait until this movie comes out, France would not allow it to be written in the French language, they certainly felt threatened by it, but they should as it shows the evils of socialism. I think Obama needs to read it.
> 
> I hope that all of you conservatives and independents take your voting age children to see this movie. It will change them from mush heads that believe anything they hear and see and turn them into critical thinkers of government policy and the fallacies that are being promoted today by a very liberal bunch of mush heads who happen to be in the executive office.
> 
> I hear it was a businessman that invested 10 million dollars to make this movie. Please pass this information on to all of your contacts and urge them to see it. It makes you think and think critically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama probably read it many years ago. Ironically, depending on the age of the children, they may come away from the movie scratching their heads and asking mommy whether or not daddy plans to quit his job just so he can make a point, or if daddy _does_ quit his job, how will I eat? Will I still be able to get a new I-Pod?
Click to expand...


or if daddy quits his job to be president, even after saying he wouldn't.... just to make his point.
most of the arguing i haer doesn't deliniate between selfish and selfless, it's all in the book.


----------



## MaggieMae

Maple said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty"
> 
> What I believe, is that the above, like it or not, is human nature, and that ultimately, flying in the face of it with a political ideology is a futile enterprise. You can force people to behave otherwise, or at least pretend to; you cannot, however, make them like it. This is why communism failed (it cannot exist, without a tyranny to support it), and why socialism and liberalism, as advocated today, cannot long prevail in a democracy. The real world *is* dog eat dog, and most people, instinctively knowing that, live and act accordingly, regardless of what they say. Liberals know this as well as anyone (why else would they be so determined to silence or even eliminate their political opposition) and are just as ruthless in pursuit of power as anyone else, all their protestations of "unselfishness" to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captilism has brought more people up and out of poverty than any government program ever did. That's a proven fact, but then again Liberals ignore the facts. Clinton's end of welfare as we know it, propelled people out of the projects and into the middle class, you ask why? Because you either sink or you swim.
Click to expand...


Capitalism shouldn't ever equal dog-eat-dog. There was a time when great capitalists also had a strong sense of moral obligation to their workers, like Henry Ford.


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did my ex-husband who was uber conservative. Even before he got sick, however, that didn't stop him from gaming the system whenever he could, i.e., applying for an additional Social Security card so he could work under the table and only declare the meager income he did have to report, then write-off made up expenses. Yeah, he was a real piece of work, but Nixon and Reagan were his HEROES!! When he did get sick, he not only got food stamps, MediCal coverage and utilities assistance, but his rent was subsidized. I suspect if my ex-husband were still alive, he'd be one of those Californians screaming his head off over how much in debt the California government is because of those goddamned slackers living off welfare.
Click to expand...


you let this guy get away? i mean is he still living ?
 and all the hatered towards corporations, do the people who have a lower job on the totem pole resent management ?


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait until this movie comes out, France would not allow it to be written in the French language, they certainly felt threatened by it, but they should as it shows the evils of socialism. I think Obama needs to read it.
> 
> I hope that all of you conservatives and independents take your voting age children to see this movie. It will change them from mush heads that believe anything they hear and see and turn them into critical thinkers of government policy and the fallacies that are being promoted today by a very liberal bunch of mush heads who happen to be in the executive office.
> 
> I hear it was a businessman that invested 10 million dollars to make this movie. Please pass this information on to all of your contacts and urge them to see it. It makes you think and think critically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama probably read it many years ago. Ironically, depending on the age of the children, they may come away from the movie scratching their heads and asking mommy whether or not daddy plans to quit his job just so he can make a point, or if daddy _does_ quit his job, how will I eat? Will I still be able to get a new I-Pod?
Click to expand...

And you base this assumption on what evidence?  Most college students or professors EVER read Ayn Rand.  She's darn near persona non grata in the colleges these days.  

I had to choose to read it on my own as an adult and that was only after someone tipped me off that it was an interesting read.  The Fountainhead took me 4 tries before I finally got into it, and then I LOVED it, regardless of it's stilted nature.  Atlas Shrugged I consumed in 4 days as hard as it was to read the whole John Galt Speaks section... MAN that was dry.


----------



## MaggieMae

Bern80 said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for illustrating your logical fallacy. Just because one believs one's own self interest should be served first, is not the same thing as attempting to make sure everyone else stays poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look around you... that is EXACTLY what is happening right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the wealthy making money is NOT what is causing the middle class and poor to stay poor and middle class. Though it is only human nature to blame others for your problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who are the people "hurting" and being asked to sacrifice?  It's teachers, the working poor and the middle class, that's who.  American workers, that's who.  It sure ain't Wall Street executives or anyone in the top 2% - they get continued tax relief while the rest are left go under water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they are. But those people hurting is not the bi-product of some other group of people accumulating wealth.
> 
> To the issue of the workng poor and teachers etc. I believe Rand would simply say that it is not the responsibility of others to maintain their standard of living. You are not entitled to be insulated from all fluctuating market conditions. Your job may not be as valuable tomorrow as it is today. When you say whiny bullshit like 'the rest are left to go under water' I have to ask the question who is it you believe 'left' you there? Regardless of whomever or whatever you think it is THAT is the problem in the thinking of you lefties. No one left you there. You no why? *Because it wasn't anyone elses fucking job in the first place to keep you from getting left somewhere on the lower rungs of the standard of living ladder.* It was YOUR job to take the actions that need to be taken in order to be where you wanted to be.
Click to expand...


*That's all well and good*, but the problem is you're playing the blame game which does NOT actually SOLVE the problem. Coulda shoulda woulda is no answer, nor is labeling everyone who isn't a successful working stiff as some sort of lazy ass. A _LOT_ of circumstances surround every single story, many of which have results that were unavoidable. I get sick of people like you who think everyone has the same opportunity. It's utter bullshit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the constitutional and factual reality that "(2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. "
> 
> Americans will not permit militia soviets, bigreb, in the U.S., because that is what you are implying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
> 
> Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy majority rule mob rule
> conflicts with
> Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
> BUB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No here's what I am implying ^^^^^^^^^
Click to expand...


You don't understand American history, our Constitution, or how our politics work.  Militia soviets will not be allowed to rule in America.


----------



## JakeStarkey

washamericom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the constitutional and factual reality that "(2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. "
> 
> Americans will not permit militia soviets, bigreb, in the U.S., because that is what you are implying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Click to expand...


Every state has a republican system of government.

Because you don't like what the majority decides doesn't matter at all washamerican.

militia soviets will not be allowed to rule.


----------



## JakeStarkey

washamericom said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait until this movie comes out, France would not allow it to be written in the French language, they certainly felt threatened by it, but they should as it shows the evils of socialism. I think Obama needs to read it.
> 
> I hope that all of you conservatives and independents take your voting age children to see this movie. It will change them from mush heads that believe anything they hear and see and turn them into critical thinkers of government policy and the fallacies that are being promoted today by a very liberal bunch of mush heads who happen to be in the executive office.
> 
> I hear it was a businessman that invested 10 million dollars to make this movie. Please pass this information on to all of your contacts and urge them to see it. It makes you think and think critically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama probably read it many years ago. Ironically, depending on the age of the children, they may come away from the movie scratching their heads and asking mommy whether or not daddy plans to quit his job just so he can make a point, or if daddy _does_ quit his job, how will I eat? Will I still be able to get a new I-Pod?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or if daddy quits his job to be president, even after saying he wouldn't.... just to make his point.
> most of the arguing i haer doesn't deliniate between selfish and selfless, it's all in the book.
Click to expand...


It's comments like the one you make above makes it very clear that you can't be taken seriously.


----------



## editec

washamericom said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see very little evidence on this board that most of you who claim this book and think it is your idea of a brilliant social commentary ever read it.
> 
> I think many of you know the Title, know that your masters told you it is brilliant and are trying to fake you love for it on this board.
> 
> Some of you so self-proclaiming cons have read it, no doubt, but I doubt all of you here testifying how good it is really did.
> 
> Becase as many of you proved to me time after time that you don't read much of anything, I seriously doubt many of you waded though that deadingly boring, bloated politically science screed.
> 
> _Truner Dairies_, that's I'd believe most of you cons might wade through.
> 
> But Atlas Shrugged?
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think many of you so called freedom loving cons are basically liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ask me anything... i don't know your "truner diaries"
> 
> have you read it ? are you saying it's a bad book/philosophy ?
Click to expand...

 
If the shoe I cobbled doesn't fit _you_, there's no need to protest that your toes are pinched, Wash.

I don't doubt some of you self proclaiming conservatives have waded though that deadly long, screed plagued tome.

But when people here whose writing suggests that they never read anything serious, suddently start telling us how brillant ATLAS SHRUGGED is, I am more than just a little dubious.

I haven't read A.S since about '64, so no pop quiz will be forthcoming.

At the time I read it, of course, I _loved_ it.

Of course, at the time I was a kid, too, and like most kids didn't know how the world really worked or how REAL PEOPLE WHO ARENT CARDBOARD CUT OUT LITERALY CHARACTERS act, either.

You know, much like Ayn Rand obviously never really understood human nature, and how most Libertarians notwits don't, too?

The woman was mad as a hatter, far as I can tell.

Mad as a hatter but crazy like a fox, as me mother might have put it


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert. Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged



I'm still waiting on an answer re the commune the "producers" form to get away from "evil" society.


----------



## washamericom

editec said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see very little evidence on this board that most of you who claim this book and think it is your idea of a brilliant social commentary ever read it.
> 
> I think many of you know the Title, know that your masters told you it is brilliant and are trying to fake you love for it on this board.
> 
> Some of you so self-proclaiming cons have read it, no doubt, but I doubt all of you here testifying how good it is really did.
> 
> Becase as many of you proved to me time after time that you don't read much of anything, I seriously doubt many of you waded though that deadingly boring, bloated politically science screed.
> 
> _Truner Dairies_, that's I'd believe most of you cons might wade through.
> 
> But Atlas Shrugged?
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think many of you so called freedom loving cons are basically liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ask me anything... i don't know your "truner diaries"
> 
> have you read it ? are you saying it's a bad book/philosophy ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the shoe I cobbled doesn't fit _you_, there's no need to protest that  your toes are pinched, Wash.
> 
> ??? actually this would be revealing as a business model
> 
> I don't doubt some of you self proclaiming conservatives have waded though that deadly long, screed plagued tome.
> 
> ??
> 
> But when people here whose writing suggests that they never read anything serious, suddently start telling us how brillant ATLAS SHRUGGED is, I am more than just a little dubious.
> 
> suddenly, in 53 years ? like overnight success
> 
> 
> 
> i can't be accountable for other's opinions, only my own
> 
> I haven't read A.S since about '64, so no pop quiz will be forthcoming.
> 
> At the time I read it, of course, I _loved_ it.
> 
> what changed in you ?
> 
> Of course, at the time I was a kid, toom and didn't know how the world really worked, either.
> 
> You know, much like Ayn Rand obviously never really understood human nature?
> 
> i think she understood it very well
> 
> The woman was mad as a hatter, far as I can tell.
Click to expand...


i could say the same about nancy pelosi or mya angelou


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the constitutional and factual reality that "(2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. "
> 
> Americans will not permit militia soviets, bigreb, in the U.S., because that is what you are implying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy majority rule mob rule
> conflicts with
> Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
> BUB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No here's what I am implying ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand American history, our Constitution, or how our politics work.  Militia soviets will not be allowed to rule in America.
Click to expand...

We can go back and forth you do not know anything about the Constitution or how it works. You and stalin are blood brothers you mirror him.


----------



## mudwhistle

AquaAthena said:


> I have the book and am reading it. Because of it's length, 1168 pages of the prophetic wisdom of Ayn Rand, 50 years ago, the movie will be made in three separate productions. Can't wait. I am hoping the Independents will absorb it, for we know the Left will not.



They'll go Chernobyl on it.


----------



## mudwhistle

Claudette said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.
> 
> I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
> 
> I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
> 
> Jesus. Boredom plus.
Click to expand...


Yes it's boring. 

If it weren't for the ideology Hollywood be saying it's a masterpiece.

I remember when Watchmen came out. 

Many said it was a masterpiece that very few non-intellectuals can possibly understand.

I thought the movie was boring. Interesting at times, but boring. I preferred Kick-Ass.

I kind of like movies I don't have figure out what their motivations are.


----------



## washamericom

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No here's what I am implying ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand American history, our Constitution, or how our politics work.  Militia soviets will not be allowed to rule in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can go back and forth you do not know anything about the Constitution or how it works. You and stalin are blood brothers you mirror him.
Click to expand...


this is a good example of the "oh yeah stupyhead" arguement...
_"you can't understand the constitution because I do."_

what does this have to do with atalas shrugged the movie changing the face of american politics.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

washamericom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand American history, our Constitution, or how our politics work.  Militia soviets will not be allowed to rule in America.
> 
> 
> 
> We can go back and forth you do not know anything about the Constitution or how it works. You and stalin are blood brothers you mirror him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is a good example of the "oh yeah stupyhead" arguement...
> _"you can't understand the constitution because I do."_
> 
> what does this have to do with atalas shrugged the movie changing the face of american politics.
Click to expand...


Why are you asking me?


----------



## washamericom

JakeStarkey said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama probably read it many years ago. Ironically, depending on the age of the children, they may come away from the movie scratching their heads and asking mommy whether or not daddy plans to quit his job just so he can make a point, or if daddy _does_ quit his job, how will I eat? Will I still be able to get a new I-Pod?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or if daddy quits his job to be president, even after saying he wouldn't.... just to make his point.
> most of the arguing i haer doesn't deliniate between selfish and selfless, it's all in the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comments like the one you make above makes it very clear that you can't be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


that was a bit of a poliyical stretch... i'm trying to highlite the double standard.


----------



## washamericom

mudwhistle said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.
> 
> I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
> 
> I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
> 
> Jesus. Boredom plus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it's boring.
> 
> If it weren't for the ideology Hollywood be saying it's a masterpiece.
> 
> I remember when Watchmen came out.
> 
> Many said it was a masterpiece that very few non-intellectuals can possibly understand.
> 
> I thought the movie was boring. Interesting at times, but boring. I preferred Kick-Ass.
> 
> I kind of like movies I don't have figure out what their motivations are.
Click to expand...


have you seen die hard ?? that was AWESOME !


----------



## washamericom

bigrebnc1775 said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can go back and forth you do not know anything about the Constitution or how it works. You and stalin are blood brothers you mirror him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is a good example of the "oh yeah stupyhead" arguement...
> _"you can't understand the constitution because I do."_
> 
> what does this have to do with atalas shrugged the movie changing the face of american politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking me?
Click to expand...


i don't know, i guess that's what we do here.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

washamericom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is a good example of the "oh yeah stupyhead" arguement...
> _"you can't understand the constitution because I do."_
> 
> what does this have to do with atalas shrugged the movie changing the face of american politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't know, i guess that's what we do here.
Click to expand...


Why don't you ask starkey?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I will answer for myself.  Because I believe in a constitutional republic that its representatives are generally elected democratically, bigrebnc throws terms he does not understand around (like stalinist), because he apparently wants militia units to rule our country.  bigreb, what are you?  You are not a constitutionalist, that is for sure.


----------



## LostAmerican

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.


 

Today's America is more like............"Death of A Salesman"!​


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, but I'm going to predict that this movie will not change the face of American politics.
> 
> 
> 
> In this one respect, I'm siding with NYC here.  I think they're right on this one.
> 
> BUT, if this movie somehow catches the public zeitgeist, it will not change politics on it's own.  It will change something more important, public philosophy and national identity.
> 
> Both of those changes, down the line, will alter the nation.
> 
> Chances are slim, but it's how these things change.
Click to expand...


The last time public identity in general changed was when baby boomers became adults. They never new sacrifice, never knew how to live within their means, never knew a sense of real community, as their parents had. There was never a time in history when all classes of people felt an innate need to keep up with the Joneses. The upper middle class wanted to have all the stuff of the wealthy; the lower middle class wanted to be like the upper middle class; the lower class couldn't do either, so the government helped out and their kids stole what they wanted in order to look the part of this "New American." (That's all generalization, so please don't get picky.)

Our "national identity" has been all about *STUFF* for far too long.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have found that in life; sometimes it will take more than five minutes to absorb the essece of a philosophy or religion, or really, any complex theory. do you feel left out because you never read it and everyone is talking about it? or have you copped an undisciplined uninformed attitude. if you feel left out than good, that was th essence of my original post. if you don't read it because conservatives like it, isn't that the same as refusing to watch fox news.? you've got to love yourself before you can love another.
Click to expand...


Weren't you the one who said you "hadn't read it" and were "waiting for the movie"?? If it wasn't you, I apologize.


----------



## MaggieMae

Misty said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Productive achievement as his noblest activity". This is surely not what liberals want. They want money from the productive activity to give to those without productive activity.
Click to expand...


No, the true liberal only wants a better playing field. It shouldn't be one of _I-got-mine-so-fuck-you._


----------



## MaggieMae

Misty said:


> I think this sums up why conservatives like "Atlas Shrugged.
> 
> Directive 10-289,
> 
> "Point One served two purposes: to establish the Unification Board, and to require that all persons presently employed, stay employed in their present capacities. The age of twenty-one was selected because that was the voting age at the time. (The voting age remained at twenty-one until the first term of the Richard Nixon administration, during which time Amendment XXVI formally set the voting age at eighteen.)
> 
> Point Two was a direct response to the phenomenon of people quitting and vanishing. This was the real reason for the economic decline, as the bureaucrats half suspected, half feared. Under this point, anyone who quit and vanished faced arrest, imprisonment, and expropriation of his assets.
> 
> Point Three provided for the surrender of all intellectual property of any kind to the government. This point actually directed that holders of patents and copyrights voluntary surrender their rights, clearly an oxymoron.
> 
> Point Four simply provided that no new inventions were to be introduced for the duration. Wesley Mouch and his associates regarded new inventions as destructive of people's livelihoods.
> 
> Point Five attempted to freeze all industrial or commercial output at present levels. For the purpose of determining those levels, the Directive declared a very special fiscal year to be the year ending on the date of the Directive, which was May 1.
> 
> Point Six attempted to freeze consumer spending at the levels seen in the fiscal year ending on the date of the Directive, as Point Five had done for business output.
> 
> Point Seven was an indefinite wage and price freeze.
> 
> Point Eight, the "elastic point," vested in the Unification Board the power to decide, finally and not subject to appeal, any question not covered in Points One through Seven.



And you seriously believe all that will actually happen? Pathetic.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> I will answer for myself.  Because I believe in a constitutional republic that its representatives are generally elected democratically, bigrebnc throws terms he does not understand around (like stalinist), because he apparently wants militia units to rule our country.  bigreb, what are you?  You are not a constitutionalist, that is for sure.


You are the one that calls America a democratic Republic, and in this thread you called it a social democracy. You're contridicting yourself their sport.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want a mob rule? After isn't that what a democracy is? Imagine 51 percent of the people like me in charge. Change the laws as we please.  I would repeal the NFA kill the military and place it back in the hands of the citizens militia.Just 51 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our representatives (republicanism) generally are elected democratically, with certain exceptions such as the Electoral College.  Which you know.  But you are not interested in the constitutional republic, but only power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not interested in the constitutional republic, but only power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
Click to expand...


But of course your elected official(s) represent a lot of _other_ people, not just YOU.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> bill gates, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg... only interested in profit... howard hughs, the rockefellers...?



The first two spend billions of their own money on their philanthropic projects. Your point?


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
> 
> Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy majority rule mob rule
> conflicts with
> Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
> BUB
Click to expand...


Then there was "mob rule" by the right for six years of the Bush Administration. What is your point? Actually, your point _should have been_ that government works best when there is NOT a majority party in power; that's where compromise happens and stuff actually gets done.


----------



## MaggieMae

Misty said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Productive achievement as his noblest activity". This is surely not what liberals want. They want money from the productive activity to give to those without productive activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life'...
> 
> ...what if one is most happy when one is also unproductive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> she believed that man should be happy by being productive
> 
> if one is happy being non productive then in her mind, he is neither noble nor heroic.
> 
> It's a conservative philosophy so it doesn't work if you don't share her belief that being productive includes being happy.
Click to expand...


That much I believe to be true. However, in the last decade we've witnessed UNhappy workers because their employers don't care anymore about employee morale (again, a generalization). When wages remain flat while bonuses for the top get increased, or people get fired from an 8-hour job and replaced by two part-timers just so a company won't have to pay overtime or benefits, the rest of the staff gets restless. And eventually the product itself suffers.


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> bill gates, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg... only interested in profit... howard hughs, the rockefellers...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first two spend billions of their own money on their philanthropic projects. Your point?
Click to expand...


that these great builders of corporations are interested in things other than profit. that they are compassionate and social

you know... with great wealth (created by capitalism)

also "i think happiness is a by product if you are doing everything else you're supposed to do" johnny carson

when did a simple majority become "mob rule" it wasn't a mob that voted in obama.... was it ?


----------



## Samson

MaggieMae said:


> However, in the last decade we've witnessed UNhappy workers because their employers don't care anymore about employee morale (again, a generalization).
> 
> When wages remain flat while bonuses for the top get increased, or people get fired from an 8-hour job and replaced by two part-timers just so a company won't have to pay overtime or benefits, the rest of the staff gets restless. And eventually the product itself suffers.



You wouldn't have, like, an example or two to support your absurd pablum.



Nah, that would take effort, well beyond your ability.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> incredible... you get it... this is gold... you have single handedly defined "the american people"
> 
> liberals:  mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> conservatives:  knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.
> 
> *i'm taking this to madison*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't quit your day job.* You left out that conservatives generally are CEOs of major corporations who are *ONLY* interested in profit, and fuck the workers who help them get there. _This kind of attitude was rare in Ayn Rand's day, by the way._ Also, I don't see anyone "abandoning their jobs" today because of 'ideology'.   Those same CEOs *eliminate* jobs in order to hire cheap labor across the pond or import technical talent using H-IB visas. Hello?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this _*is *_my day job mm
Click to expand...


Then either someone/thing supports your lifestyle of posting opinions on message boards all day, you're collecting some government benefit(s), or you're rich enough to have a holier-than-thou attitude and able to look down on others less fortunate. Aren't you lucky.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our representatives (republicanism) generally are elected democratically, with certain exceptions such as the Electoral College.  Which you know.  But you are not interested in the constitutional republic, but only power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not interested in the constitutional republic, but only power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, *and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But of course your elected official(s) represent a lot of _other_ people, not just YOU.
Click to expand...

and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. Meaning the minority rights are also protected.


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have found that in life; sometimes it will take more than five minutes to absorb the essece of a philosophy or religion, or really, any complex theory. do you feel left out because you never read it and everyone is talking about it? or have you copped an undisciplined uninformed attitude. if you feel left out than good, that was th essence of my original post. if you don't read it because conservatives like it, isn't that the same as refusing to watch fox news.? you've got to love yourself before you can love another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weren't you the one who said you "hadn't read it" and were "waiting for the movie"?? If it wasn't you, I apologize.
Click to expand...


i was joking, i'm the o p


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
> 
> Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy majority rule mob rule
> conflicts with
> Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
> BUB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there was "mob rule" by the right for six years of the Bush Administration. What is your point? Actually, your point _should have been_ that government works best when there is NOT a majority party in power; that's where compromise happens and stuff actually gets done.
Click to expand...


Democracy majority rule you don't like that part do you


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the constitutional and factual reality that "(2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. "
> 
> Americans will not permit militia soviets, bigreb, in the U.S., because that is what you are implying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 4.
> 
> 
> The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Click to expand...


The founders didn't mean the Republican PARTY, a/k/a the GOP. At the time of the signing of The Constitution, there were only two parties: The Federalists and (ironically) the Democratic-Republican Party! It wasn't until early in the 20th Century that the Democrats and Republicans split into the two parties we now know. Geesh--do some homework.


----------



## washamericom

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, *and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of course your elected official(s) represent a lot of _other_ people, not just YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. Meaning the minority rights are also protected.
Click to expand...


i think wisconsin is a good example. the democrat party and the publik unions were outmaneuvered, and they didn't like it. just as we were outmaneuvered by the big three obama reid pelosi) over healthcare, we didn't like it, but it was legal (not very ethical)
this all according to the law, and subsequent judicial review (if necessary)
by the way good catch on "they didn't mean the republican party" i was dangling a literal motzaball. u r sharp maggie


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean the world is not a simple place of this good, that bad, him left, her right.  We do not live in a world where all people's attitudes, beliefs, actions, etc. tightly revolve around the the poles.  We live in a world where Republicans support abortion rights and Democrats support tougher border security.  We live in a society that dislikes when people revolve around those poles; we call such people extremists and with the exception of those extremists themselves we universally reject extremism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that too. Forgive me for getting too Randian with my own explanation!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's funny, i can aleways count on you for a good discussion.
> 
> what if i said we live in a world where democrats deny right to life.
> but i think in the case of the movie, it's more about business than abortion.
Click to expand...


Now this thread has been reduced to wedge issues? What does abortion have to do with any of this? And just fyi, there are PLENTY of Democrats who do not believe in abortion; I'm one of them. But I do get that it's a woman's choice. I mean, seriously? Ironically, what you people are ALL about is personal choice--except when it comes to that particular issue. I don't get the "ideology" behind that at all.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait until this movie comes out, France would not allow it to be written in the French language, they certainly felt threatened by it, but they should as it shows the evils of socialism. I think Obama needs to read it.
> 
> I hope that all of you conservatives and independents take your voting age children to see this movie. It will change them from mush heads that believe anything they hear and see and turn them into critical thinkers of government policy and the fallacies that are being promoted today by a very liberal bunch of mush heads who happen to be in the executive office.
> 
> I hear it was a businessman that invested 10 million dollars to make this movie. Please pass this information on to all of your contacts and urge them to see it. It makes you think and think critically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama probably read it many years ago. Ironically, depending on the age of the children, they may come away from the movie scratching their heads and asking mommy whether or not daddy plans to quit his job just so he can make a point, or if daddy _does_ quit his job, how will I eat? Will I still be able to get a new I-Pod?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or if daddy quits his job to be president, even after saying he wouldn't.... just to make his point.
> most of the arguing i haer doesn't deliniate between selfish and selfless, it's all in the book.
Click to expand...


Now you're not making any sense. Put the bong down and get some rest.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did my ex-husband who was uber conservative. Even before he got sick, however, that didn't stop him from gaming the system whenever he could, i.e., applying for an additional Social Security card so he could work under the table and only declare the meager income he did have to report, then write-off made up expenses. Yeah, he was a real piece of work, but Nixon and Reagan were his HEROES!! When he did get sick, he not only got food stamps, MediCal coverage and utilities assistance, but his rent was subsidized. I suspect if my ex-husband were still alive, he'd be one of those Californians screaming his head off over how much in debt the California government is because of those goddamned slackers living off welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you let this guy get away? i mean is he still living ?
> and all the hatered towards corporations, do the people who have a lower job on the totem pole resent management ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Samson

MaggieMae said:


> The founders didn't mean the Republican PARTY, a/k/a the GOP. At the time of the signing of The Constitution, there were only two parties: The Federalists and (ironically) the Democratic-Republican Party! _*It wasn't until early in the 20th Century*_ that the Democrats and Republicans split into the two parties we now know. Geesh--do some homework.



Um...the Republican Party was founded in 1854.

_THE 19th Century._
As usual YOU are the one that needs to do some homework: Intellectual Lightweight.

You're fucking pitiful.


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait until this movie comes out, France would not allow it to be written in the French language, they certainly felt threatened by it, but they should as it shows the evils of socialism. I think Obama needs to read it.
> 
> I hope that all of you conservatives and independents take your voting age children to see this movie. It will change them from mush heads that believe anything they hear and see and turn them into critical thinkers of government policy and the fallacies that are being promoted today by a very liberal bunch of mush heads who happen to be in the executive office.
> 
> I hear it was a businessman that invested 10 million dollars to make this movie. Please pass this information on to all of your contacts and urge them to see it. It makes you think and think critically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama probably read it many years ago. Ironically, depending on the age of the children, they may come away from the movie scratching their heads and asking mommy whether or not daddy plans to quit his job just so he can make a point, or if daddy _does_ quit his job, how will I eat? Will I still be able to get a new I-Pod?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you base this assumption on what evidence?  Most college students or professors EVER read Ayn Rand.  She's darn near persona non grata in the colleges these days.
> 
> I had to choose to read it on my own as an adult and that was only after someone tipped me off that it was an interesting read.  The Fountainhead took me 4 tries before I finally got into it, and then I LOVED it, regardless of it's stilted nature.  Atlas Shrugged I consumed in 4 days as hard as it was to read the whole John Galt Speaks section... MAN that was dry.
Click to expand...


I had to read it in high school. Perhaps most college professors are silly enough to believe that it still might happen that high school students get a good education. I read it as part of my Economics 101 course over a six-month period, where we had pop quizzes on the chapters as they applied to known applications.


----------



## MaggieMae

editec said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see very little evidence on this board that most of you who claim this book and think it is your idea of a brilliant social commentary ever read it.
> 
> I think many of you know the Title, know that your masters told you it is brilliant and are trying to fake you love for it on this board.
> 
> Some of you so self-proclaiming cons have read it, no doubt, but I doubt all of you here testifying how good it is really did.
> 
> Becase as many of you proved to me time after time that you don't read much of anything, I seriously doubt many of you waded though that deadingly boring, bloated politically science screed.
> 
> _Truner Dairies_, that's I'd believe most of you cons might wade through.
> 
> But Atlas Shrugged?
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think many of you so called freedom loving cons are basically liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ask me anything... i don't know your "truner diaries"
> 
> have you read it ? are you saying it's a bad book/philosophy ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the shoe I cobbled doesn't fit _you_, there's no need to protest that your toes are pinched, Wash.
> 
> I don't doubt some of you self proclaiming conservatives have waded though that deadly long, screed plagued tome.
> 
> But when people here whose writing suggests that they never read anything serious, suddently start telling us how brillant ATLAS SHRUGGED is, I am more than just a little dubious.
> 
> I haven't read A.S since about '64, so no pop quiz will be forthcoming.
> 
> At the time I read it, of course, I _loved_ it.
> 
> Of course, at the time I was a kid, too, and like most kids didn't know how the world really worked or how REAL PEOPLE WHO ARENT CARDBOARD CUT OUT LITERALY CHARACTERS act, either.
> 
> You know, much like Ayn Rand obviously never really understood human nature, and how most Libertarians notwits don't, too?
> 
> The woman was mad as a hatter, far as I can tell.
> 
> Mad as a hatter but crazy like a fox, as me mother might have put it
Click to expand...


Same thing with The Fountainhead. The adolescent mind thinks the highlight is when the hero blows up his own building. And that makes it a great book. When my brother first read "Gone With the Wind," the most exciting part to him was the burning of Atlanta. Of course he was only 16 when he read it and the ramifications of the Civil War hadn't been absorbed yet.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

washamericom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> But of course your elected official(s) represent a lot of _other_ people, not just YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. Meaning the minority rights are also protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think wisconsin is a good example. the democrat party and the publik unions were outmaneuvered, and they didn't like it. just as we were outmaneuvered by the big three obama reid pelosi) over healthcare, we didn't like it, but it was legal (not very ethical)
> this all according to the law, and subsequent judicial review (if necessary)
> by the way good catch on "they didn't mean the republican party" i was dangling a literal motzaball. u r sharp maggie
Click to expand...


Healthcare coverage is not protected in the bill of rights or is a part of the Constitution, nor can the government force the citizens of America to buy a product.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama probably read it many years ago. Ironically, depending on the age of the children, they may come away from the movie scratching their heads and asking mommy whether or not daddy plans to quit his job just so he can make a point, or if daddy _does_ quit his job, how will I eat? Will I still be able to get a new I-Pod?
> 
> 
> 
> And you base this assumption on what evidence?  Most college students or professors EVER read Ayn Rand.  She's darn near persona non grata in the colleges these days.
> 
> I had to choose to read it on my own as an adult and that was only after someone tipped me off that it was an interesting read.  The Fountainhead took me 4 tries before I finally got into it, and then I LOVED it, regardless of it's stilted nature.  Atlas Shrugged I consumed in 4 days as hard as it was to read the whole John Galt Speaks section... MAN that was dry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had to read it in high school. Perhaps most college professors are silly enough to believe that it still might happen that high school students get a good education. I read it as part of my Economics 101 course over a six-month period, where we had pop quizzes on the chapters as they applied to known applications.
Click to expand...

Amazing.  Most public school kids like me never even heard of the book.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ask me anything... i don't know your "truner diaries"
> 
> have you read it ? are you saying it's a bad book/philosophy ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the shoe I cobbled doesn't fit _you_, there's no need to protest that your toes are pinched, Wash.
> 
> I don't doubt some of you self proclaiming conservatives have waded though that deadly long, screed plagued tome.
> 
> But when people here whose writing suggests that they never read anything serious, suddently start telling us how brillant ATLAS SHRUGGED is, I am more than just a little dubious.
> 
> I haven't read A.S since about '64, so no pop quiz will be forthcoming.
> 
> At the time I read it, of course, I _loved_ it.
> 
> Of course, at the time I was a kid, too, and like most kids didn't know how the world really worked or how REAL PEOPLE WHO ARENT CARDBOARD CUT OUT LITERALY CHARACTERS act, either.
> 
> You know, much like Ayn Rand obviously never really understood human nature, and how most Libertarians notwits don't, too?
> 
> The woman was mad as a hatter, far as I can tell.
> 
> Mad as a hatter but crazy like a fox, as me mother might have put it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing with The Fountainhead. The adolescent mind thinks the highlight is when the hero blows up his own building. And that makes it a great book. When my brother first read "Gone With the Wind," the most exciting part to him was the burning of Atlanta. Of course he was only 16 when he read it and the ramifications of the Civil War hadn't been absorbed yet.
Click to expand...

It's like a friend from college joked:  "Citizen Kane would have been the perfect movie if they had just exploded one truck!"


----------



## washamericom

that's funny about citizen kane... i can't believe shallow read 800 pages then threw it out, that's tasty


----------



## Big Fitz

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders didn't mean the Republican PARTY, a/k/a the GOP. At the time of the signing of The Constitution, there were only two parties: The Federalists and (ironically) the Democratic-Republican Party! _*It wasn't until early in the 20th Century*_ that the Democrats and Republicans split into the two parties we now know. Geesh--do some homework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...the Republican Party was founded in 1854.
> 
> _THE 19th Century._
> As usual YOU are the one that needs to do some homework: Intellectual Lightweight.
> 
> You're fucking pitiful.
Click to expand...

Gotta love the Election of 1860.  4 major candidates and the shambles of the Whig party, states rights, slavery and secession in the balance.  The election of Lincoln guaranteed a civil war after the mess that Buchanan left when leaving office.  I love Buchanan's quote to Lincoln as they met briefly to change power:

"If you are as happy a man to take the office of President as I am to leave it, you are a very happy man!"


----------



## Sarah G

There's a miniseries starting 3-27.  Mildred Pierce.

Now THAT looks really good, whatever happened to miniseries' anyway?


----------



## gekaap

washamericom said:


> i have found that in life; sometimes it will take more than five minutes to absorb the essece of a philosophy or religion, or really, any complex theory. do you feel left out because you never read it and everyone is talking about it? or have you copped an undisciplined uninformed attitude. if you feel left out than good, that was th essence of my original post. if you don't read it because conservatives like it, isn't that the same as refusing to watch fox news.? you've got to love yourself before you can love another.



o_0  Are you intentionally missing the sarcasm?


----------



## gekaap

NYcarbineer said:


> ...what if one is most happy when one is also unproductive?



See, that's the problem with Rand.  Ultimately she's forced to accept contradictions, or be rejected completely.


----------



## Big Fitz

Sarah G said:


> There's a miniseries starting 3-27.  Mildred Pierce.
> 
> Now THAT looks really good, whatever happened to miniseries' anyway?


Death by Cable.


----------



## Big Fitz

gekaap said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what if one is most happy when one is also unproductive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with Rand.  Ultimately she's forced to accept contradictions, or be rejected completely.
Click to expand...

And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die.  Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people.  Or die.  that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.

The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person.  Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam.  At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest.  Most aren't.

So, your premise is flawed.


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ask me anything... i don't know your "truner diaries"
> 
> have you read it ? are you saying it's a bad book/philosophy ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the shoe I cobbled doesn't fit _you_, there's no need to protest that your toes are pinched, Wash.
> 
> I don't doubt some of you self proclaiming conservatives have waded though that deadly long, screed plagued tome.
> 
> But when people here whose writing suggests that they never read anything serious, suddently start telling us how brillant ATLAS SHRUGGED is, I am more than just a little dubious.
> 
> I haven't read A.S since about '64, so no pop quiz will be forthcoming.
> 
> At the time I read it, of course, I _loved_ it.
> 
> Of course, at the time I was a kid, too, and like most kids didn't know how the world really worked or how REAL PEOPLE WHO ARENT CARDBOARD CUT OUT LITERALY CHARACTERS act, either.
> 
> You know, much like Ayn Rand obviously never really understood human nature, and how most Libertarians notwits don't, too?
> 
> The woman was mad as a hatter, far as I can tell.
> 
> Mad as a hatter but crazy like a fox, as me mother might have put it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing with The Fountainhead. The adolescent mind thinks the highlight is when the hero blows up his own building. And that makes it a great book. When my brother first read "Gone With the Wind," the most exciting part to him was the burning of Atlanta. Of course he was only 16 when he read it and the ramifications of the Civil War hadn't been absorbed yet.
Click to expand...




it's always been there... like the book at the library. this goes back to my original post that when "the message gets to the people". 

i would further submit that if this movie had come out in 2007 sarah palin would be vice president. this is what i meant by "may/will change the face of american politics". this general concept is what democrat partiers are most afraid of.


----------



## gekaap

Big Fitz said:


> And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die.  Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people.  Or die.  that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.
> 
> The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person.  Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam.  At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest.  Most aren't.
> 
> So, your premise is flawed.



No, it's not flawed at all.  If pursuing one's happiness is the highest moral standard a person should live by, then anything becomes justified, including being a fat, lazy slob who freeloads, even outright steals from others, who abuses others in less powerful positions of life.  Accepting this is necessary to hold to Rand's views.  This then puts the less powerful in a place where they are forced to "pursue" their happiness only inasmuch as they are avoiding the wrath of the thief, who is of course the most moral a person can be.  De facto, the less powerful person is working first for his master's happiness, and his own happiness is secondary.  Which makes him less moral.  BUT, because his efforts are productive, his deeds are the most noble that any can be.  Herein lies the contradiction.  How can one person's deeds be the most noble any deed can be, if he is of lesser moral quality than the the most moral man?  And how can the most moral man's deeds be the least noble?


----------



## washamericom

gekaap said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die.  Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people.  Or die.  that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.
> 
> The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person.  Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam.  At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest.  Most aren't.
> 
> So, your premise is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not flawed at all.  If pursuing one's happiness is the highest moral standard a person should live by, then anything becomes justified, including being a fat, lazy slob who freeloads, even outright steals from others, who abuses others in less powerful positions of life.  Accepting this is necessary to hold to Rand's views.  This then puts the less powerful in a place where they are forced to "pursue" their happiness only inasmuch as they are avoiding the wrath of the thief, who is of course the most moral a person can be.  De facto, the less powerful person is working first for his master's happiness, and his own happiness is secondary.  Which makes him less moral.  BUT, because his efforts are productive, his deeds are the most noble that any can be.  Herein lies the contradiction.  How can one person's deeds be the most noble any deed can be, if he is of lesser moral quality than the the most moral man?  And how can the most moral man's deeds be the least noble?
Click to expand...


what crap... but you're really cute...

 i forgot to mention that this is only part 1 of a three part thread. part two is forthcoming, and the part three i'm saving for the aynrandusmessageboardthisthread summit in vegas in the fall. so pace yourselves.

aynrandusmessageboardthisthread.com


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. Meaning the minority rights are also protected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think wisconsin is a good example. the democrat party and the publik unions were outmaneuvered, and they didn't like it. just as we were outmaneuvered by the big three obama reid pelosi) over healthcare, we didn't like it, but it was legal (not very ethical)
> this all according to the law, and subsequent judicial review (if necessary)
> by the way good catch on "they didn't mean the republican party" i was dangling a literal motzaball. u r sharp maggie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Healthcare coverage is not protected in the bill of rights or is a part of the Constitution, nor can the government force the citizens of America to buy a product.
Click to expand...


Some theorists agree with you, many do not, and the courts will make the final decision.  I think the bill is defensible in SCOTUS, but time will tell.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Big Fitz said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what if one is most happy when one is also unproductive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with Rand.  Ultimately she's forced to accept contradictions, or be rejected completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die.  Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people.  Or die.  that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.
> 
> The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person.  Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam.  At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest.  Most aren't.
> 
> So, your premise is flawed.
Click to expand...


Nope, your premise and analysis are flawed, and you are dismissed as the weakest link.  I thought it was bigrebnc, but you just surpassed him.


----------



## JakeStarkey

washamericom said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the shoe I cobbled doesn't fit _you_, there's no need to protest that your toes are pinched, Wash.
> 
> I don't doubt some of you self proclaiming conservatives have waded though that deadly long, screed plagued tome.
> 
> But when people here whose writing suggests that they never read anything serious, suddently start telling us how brillant ATLAS SHRUGGED is, I am more than just a little dubious.
> 
> I haven't read A.S since about '64, so no pop quiz will be forthcoming.
> 
> At the time I read it, of course, I _loved_ it.
> 
> Of course, at the time I was a kid, too, and like most kids didn't know how the world really worked or how REAL PEOPLE WHO ARENT CARDBOARD CUT OUT LITERALY CHARACTERS act, either.
> 
> You know, much like Ayn Rand obviously never really understood human nature, and how most Libertarians notwits don't, too?
> 
> The woman was mad as a hatter, far as I can tell.
> 
> Mad as a hatter but crazy like a fox, as me mother might have put it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with The Fountainhead. The adolescent mind thinks the highlight is when the hero blows up his own building. And that makes it a great book. When my brother first read "Gone With the Wind," the most exciting part to him was the burning of Atlanta. Of course he was only 16 when he read it and the ramifications of the Civil War hadn't been absorbed yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's always been there... like the book at the library. this goes back to my original post that when "the message gets to the people".
> 
> i would further submit that if this movie had come out in 2007 sarah palin would be vice president. this is what i meant by "may/will change the face of american politics". this general concept is what democrat partiers are most afraid of.
Click to expand...


If the movie were released in 2007, the Dems would have won by 60% across the board.

You weirdos really think you are in the center of reality instead floating on the whirlpool down the drain of extremism.


----------



## gekaap

washamericom said:


> what crap... but you're really cute...



In other words, you're unable to address the merits of my analysis of Rand's objectism.  So since you can't logically deny what I've said, you will instead resort to ad hominems.


----------



## washamericom

gekaap said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> what crap... but you're really cute...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're unable to address the merits of my analysis of Rand's objectism.  So since you can't logically deny what I've said, you will instead resort to ad hominems.
Click to expand...


I waz talking to the clown...

no really, fitz just did and you set off a smokebomb

have you honestly read the book (either book) ? cuz u can't fake it. objectivism


----------



## gekaap

washamericom said:


> have you honestly read the book (either book) ? cuz u can't fake it.



Yep, picked it up a year ago, read all but the last couple chapters.  Had put it down for a bit, moved in the meantime, and never got around to getting it unpacked.  Earlier in the thread I gave a brief analysis on it, if you care to backtrack and take a look.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with The Fountainhead. The adolescent mind thinks the highlight is when the hero blows up his own building. And that makes it a great book. When my brother first read "Gone With the Wind," the most exciting part to him was the burning of Atlanta. Of course he was only 16 when he read it and the ramifications of the Civil War hadn't been absorbed yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's always been there... like the book at the library. this goes back to my original post that when "the message gets to the people".
> 
> i would further submit that if this movie had come out in 2007 sarah palin would be vice president. this is what i meant by "may/will change the face of american politics". this general concept is what democrat partiers are most afraid of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the movie were released in 2007, the Dems would have won by 60% across the board.
> 
> You weirdos really think you are in the center of reality instead floating on the whirlpool down the drain of extremism.
Click to expand...


You say that as if it makes you happy. You say that as if you are comparing the democrats to Jefferson Smith? I guess on both accounts you would. 
Frank Capra the director and producer was a Republican


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, I am saying you flakes far, far, far to the right -- birthers, truthers, racists, militia, etc -- have no place suggesting you are mainstream.  If the GOP displays you people as acceptable roles in a campaign, our party will get clobbered by the liberals, the leftists, the dems, the centrists, and responsible GOP.  You are a danger to the Republic, period, bigrebnc, and the relegation of the Republican Party until we get rid of you as we did the McCarthyites, the Birchers, the extremists who called themselves falsely as Goldwaterites, etc.


----------



## hipeter924

gekaap said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you honestly read the book (either book) ? cuz u can't fake it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, picked it up a year ago, read all but the last couple chapters.  Had put it down for a bit, moved in the meantime, and never got around to getting it unpacked.  Earlier in the thread I gave a brief analysis on it, if you care to backtrack and take a look.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you...I read it...it put me to sleep. Its characters are so dull and it was very uninspiring, Anthem was the best of her works in my opinion.


----------



## Big Fitz

> If pursuing one's happiness is the highest moral standard a person  should live by, then anything becomes justified


Straw man.  Pursuing ANYTHING to the point of distraction is just as bad.



> Accepting this is necessary to hold to Rand's views


Obviously you don't understand Objectivism even a little bit.  At no point does she come out against altruism or charity if it is given FREELY from one person to another.  But charity beguiled out of someone by pity is just as bad as stealing by threat of violence or actual force.  Can a person gain by giving charity freely?  Absolutely!  There is a certain sense of personal satisfaction with giving someone help to make their life better, and there is nothing wrong with that.  It is all in what you value, and if you are in love with one thing to the distraction of all others, it is not evil per sey, but the consequences may be dire.

The idea that you must live for others to the deleterious affect on yourself because society demands it, is the true horror.  Read The Fountainhead sometime, and educate yourself.



> This then puts the less powerful in a place where they are forced to  "pursue" their happiness only inasmuch as they are avoiding the wrath of  the thief, who is of course the most moral a person can be.  De facto,  the less powerful person is working first for his master's happiness,  and his own happiness is secondary.  Which makes him less moral.


  You're going to pull a muscle trying to shoehorn that crap into anyone's head.  You're making so many assumptions in this statement, ladle out undefined 'morality', plus adding class warfare in while pushing your effort to foist a false premise on us.

Everyone works first for himself.  They trade their labor for the means in which to survive.  They negotiate a deal with those around them to do this.  Either their energy is put towards directly supplying their needs or to garner a means of trade (currency) in which to buy what they need.  You created the fantasy of master and slave here.  It is a contract between employer and employee.  Worker and land.  Sorry, but you still aren't getting it.



> Which makes him less moral.  BUT, because his efforts are productive,  his deeds are the most noble that any can be.  Herein lies the  contradiction.


Wrong, this is parasite talk.  You just tried to reverse the argument and only flopped on your back like a philosophical tortoise, suffocating under your own busted argument.  The worker works for himself through an employer or directly through the land and 'self employment'.  If the worker cannot achieve enough success to survive, they must move on to a more profitable venue or again, starve.  If they cannot handle the environment and conditions in which they work, they must move.  If they cannot move, they must find a way to improve their lot in life and make it tolerable.

On another side of this die is the employer.  They have reached a point of having too much work to do by themselves and need to find others to help him, and share in the profits (via wages and other compensation) to complete it for the betterment of themselves, their employees who join them in the partnership of employment and the customer who requires or at least wants what the employer and worker produce.

You assume the basic arrangement of employment is one where the employer takes labor from the employee unfairly.  They are not slaves.  They can leave, or negotiate a better compensation.  Hence your premise is now dishonest.



> How can one person's deeds be the most noble any deed can be, if he is  of lesser moral quality than the the most moral man?  And how can the  most moral man's deeds be the least noble?


You are assuming things not in evidence here in regards to morality.  Who's 'morality' are we talking about?  To a parasite, the most essential need of the host (to survive long enough to dislodge them, or at the very least prevent them from becoming too numerous to kill them) is the highest evil.  You do realize that ticks and mosquitoes and fleas in large enough numbers have killed animals right?  I've seen episodes of animal planet, of dogs and cats so flea and tick infested it was no surprise they were near death or died once in care.

Economic parasites are no better, they just don't look as nasty or are as easy to see.


----------



## Big Fitz

hipeter924 said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you honestly read the book (either book) ? cuz u can't fake it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, picked it up a year ago, read all but the last couple chapters.  Had put it down for a bit, moved in the meantime, and never got around to getting it unpacked.  Earlier in the thread I gave a brief analysis on it, if you care to backtrack and take a look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hate to break it to you...I read it...it put me to sleep. Its characters are so dull and it was very uninspiring, Anthem was the best of her works in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Anthem is a short but hard read, and it's even more stilted that Atlas or Fountainhead.  But it's an eye opener.


----------



## Bern80

gekaap said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die.  Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people.  Or die.  that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.
> 
> The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person.  Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam.  At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest.  Most aren't.
> 
> So, your premise is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not flawed at all.  If pursuing one's happiness is the highest moral standard a person should live by, then anything becomes justified, including being a fat, lazy slob who freeloads, even outright steals from others, who abuses others in less powerful positions of life.  Accepting this is necessary to hold to Rand's views.  This then puts the less powerful in a place where they are forced to "pursue" their happiness only inasmuch as they are avoiding the wrath of the thief, who is of course the most moral a person can be.  De facto, the less powerful person is working first for his master's happiness, and his own happiness is secondary.  Which makes him less moral.  BUT, because his efforts are productive, his deeds are the most noble that any can be.  Herein lies the contradiction.  How can one person's deeds be the most noble any deed can be, if he is of lesser moral quality than the the most moral man?  And how can the most moral man's deeds be the least noble?
Click to expand...


And that's where everyone goes wrong. They think that since Rand advocated basically selfishness that every and all means for achieving it were justified, including stealing from others. Unfortunately that is a contradiction. Because Rand also held that no one else has the right to what someone else has worked for.


----------



## gekaap

Bern80 said:


> And that's where everyone goes wrong. They think that since Rand advocated basically selfishness that every and all means for achieving it were justified, including stealing from others. Unfortunately that is a contradiction. Because Rand also held that no one else has the right to what someone else has worked for.



So it's a contradiction for me to follow Rand's ideas out all the way to the point where they contradict themselves, but Rand's ideas themselves do not constitute any contradiction?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, I am saying you flakes far, far, far to the right -- birthers, truthers, racists, militia, etc -- have no place suggesting you are mainstream.  If the GOP displays you people as acceptable roles in a campaign, our party will get clobbered by the liberals, the leftists, the dems, the centrists, and responsible GOP.  You are a danger to the Republic, period, bigrebnc, and the relegation of the Republican Party until we get rid of you as we did the McCarthyites, the Birchers, the extremists who called themselves falsely as Goldwaterites, etc.



The original birthers were democrats, the truthers are democrats, you keep mentioning race so that makes you a racist. The militia has been approved by congress. Now for the mainstream BS. Its because of your mainstream tht gave the GOP McCain. It wasn't until Sarah Palin came along that his approval rating jumped  up and made it a lot closer than it was originally going to be. I'm sure you would love to have another liberal republican running again.


----------



## washamericom

gekaap said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you honestly read the book (either book) ? cuz u can't fake it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, picked it up a year ago, read all but the last couple chapters.  Had put it down for a bit, moved in the meantime, and never got around to getting it unpacked.  Earlier in the thread I gave a brief analysis on it, if you care to backtrack and take a look.
Click to expand...


sallow already used this story, if you care to backtrack


----------



## JakeStarkey

You weirdo wacks so far out on the right are so predictable.


----------



## washamericom

Bern80 said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die.  Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people.  Or die.  that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.
> 
> The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person.  Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam.  At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest.  Most aren't.
> 
> So, your premise is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not flawed at all.  If pursuing one's happiness is the highest moral standard a person should live by, then anything becomes justified, including being a fat, lazy slob who freeloads, even outright steals from others, who abuses others in less powerful positions of life.  Accepting this is necessary to hold to Rand's views.  This then puts the less powerful in a place where they are forced to "pursue" their happiness only inasmuch as they are avoiding the wrath of the thief, who is of course the most moral a person can be.  De facto, the less powerful person is working first for his master's happiness, and his own happiness is secondary.  Which makes him less moral.  BUT, because his efforts are productive, his deeds are the most noble that any can be.  Herein lies the contradiction.  How can one person's deeds be the most noble any deed can be, if he is of lesser moral quality than the the most moral man?  And how can the most moral man's deeds be the least noble?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's where everyone goes wrong. They think that since Rand advocated basically selfishness that every and all means for achieving it were justified, including stealing from others. Unfortunately that is a contradiction. Because Rand also held that no one else has the right to what someone else has worked for.
Click to expand...


seriously ?? by fiat ?  and i think that truthers are more from the left too. it's logical since they evolved from hating bush (the president).


----------



## gekaap

washamericom said:


> sallow already used this story, if you care to backtrack



Alright, you got me.  I been lyin about it.  I never heard of the book before today.  I just wanted to be part of the crowd so I been fakin like I know what I'm talkin about, like that kid in The Sandlot who didn't know who the Great Bambino was.  I'm a horrible person.  I deserve to be in a plane crash over the Colorado mountains.  Maybe I'll get lucky and land on top of a hologram that's hiding a valley and survive the crash.  I'll rent a car from the banker for a quarter, crash in Galt's house and convince him to hire me to help slug clean house during the day, and smoke cigarettes with dollar signs on them.

You know, I got this uncle who works as a cook in a diner.  Funny thing, him doing that.  He used to be a great philosopher and work in a big fancy university.   Said something once about knowing a guy who made this amazing motor that was super efficient.  It would have changed the world, my uncle said, but they guy left it on the floor in some old factory, and when the factory shut down the local town fell to pieces.

BTW, wasn't it you who posted the clip of the trailer in another thread before this one?  You and I had a brief exchange there about the upcoming movie.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
> 
> Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy majority rule mob rule
> conflicts with
> Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
> BUB
Click to expand...


So all the references over the years, by historians, to such things as Jeffersonian democracy, Jacksonian democracy,

all those people just aren't as smart as you??

lol


----------



## Big Fitz

gekaap said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's where everyone goes wrong. They think that since Rand advocated basically selfishness that every and all means for achieving it were justified, including stealing from others. Unfortunately that is a contradiction. Because Rand also held that no one else has the right to what someone else has worked for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's a contradiction for me to follow Rand's ideas out all the way to the point where they contradict themselves, but Rand's ideas themselves do not constitute any contradiction?
Click to expand...

Yeah, redacto in absurdum fail.  In the process of 'going all the way out', someone jingled their keys and you forgot what you were doing and defaulted back to your looter talking points and mixed that in giving us garbage.


----------



## NYcarbineer

washamericom said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert.  Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
> 
> *My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged*
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have found that in life; sometimes it will take more than five minutes to absorb the essece of a philosophy or religion, or really, any complex theory. do you feel left out because you never read it and everyone is talking about it? or have you copped an undisciplined uninformed attitude. if you feel left out than good, that was th essence of my original post. if you don't read it because conservatives like it, isn't that the same as refusing to watch fox news.? you've got to love yourself before you can love another.
Click to expand...


*The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence. *
(Ayn Rand)

Plus, I can't BE intimidated, so you lost that one twice.


----------



## NYcarbineer

washamericom said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait until this movie comes out, France would not allow it to be written in the French language, they certainly felt threatened by it, but they should as it shows the evils of socialism. I think Obama needs to read it.
> 
> I hope that all of you conservatives and independents take your voting age children to see this movie. It will change them from mush heads that believe anything they hear and see and turn them into critical thinkers of government policy and the fallacies that are being promoted today by a very liberal bunch of mush heads who happen to be in the executive office.
> 
> I hear it was a businessman that invested 10 million dollars to make this movie. Please pass this information on to all of your contacts and urge them to see it. It makes you think and think critically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> france trying to censor the book is icing on the objective cake, i hate the french. (sarkosy has been better recently though).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
> 
> i'm hoping that the movie (which makes objectivism more consumable for the public) will inspire that elusive american dream again, *when hard work and individual achievement drive the economy to where it should be*. this is instead of "we need to spread the wealth around" and "we can't have sucessful corporations producing _too much_ (more than their "fair share" a term (theme) you will be hearing alot in the upcoming election)
> 
> this applies accurately to cap and trade specifically, where (according to wikkepedia) "a government authority" will determine how much a corporation can consume and emit.
> 
> Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The irony of the above is, Americans work harder and longer now than they did 50 years ago.

The working/middle class 2 earner household (to make ends meet) is so commonplace nowadays that young people don't even think twice about it as one of the realities of life;  50 years ago, the household supported by 1 earner was the norm.


----------



## Big Fitz

Cluelessness is not a valid defense, but it does make you look funny.  



> The irony of the above is, Americans work harder and longer now than  they did 50 years ago.


This couldn't have anything to do with the devaluation of the dollar over the last 50 years now, could it?  Oil for instance is almost identically priced today versus gold as it was 100 years ago.



> The working/middle class 2 earner household (to make ends meet) is so  commonplace nowadays that young people don't even think twice about it  as one of the realities of life;  50 years ago, the household supported  by 1 earner was the norm.



Also, how much of this has to do with the following aspects:

-Women's liberation vilifying being a homemaker pushing women into the workplace diluting the labor market.
-The "Keeping up with the Joneses" syndrome of materialism.
-International labor market competition brought about by bad national trade policy driving wages down
-Open borders importing low skill workers who drive down wages, and foreign students who can do the technical jobs Americans can't thanks to dumbed down schools.

Nope.. these couldn't have had ANY impact on the cost of living for the average family...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
> 
> Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy majority rule mob rule
> conflicts with
> Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
> BUB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all the references over the years, by historians, to such things as Jeffersonian democracy, Jacksonian democracy,
> 
> all those people just aren't as smart as you??
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


Are we
A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. 

B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.


James Madison
There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind
(Federalist No. 63).

Benjamin Franklin 


> Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
> 
> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.


The Greatest Benjamin Franklin Quotes


----------



## NYcarbineer

Big Fitz said:


> Cluelessness is not a valid defense, but it does make you look funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of the above is, Americans work harder and longer now than  they did 50 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> This couldn't have anything to do with the devaluation of the dollar over the last 50 years now, could it?  Oil for instance is almost identically priced today versus gold as it was 100 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The working/middle class 2 earner household (to make ends meet) is so  commonplace nowadays that young people don't even think twice about it  as one of the realities of life;  50 years ago, the household supported  by 1 earner was the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, how much of this has to do with the following aspects:
> 
> -Women's liberation vilifying being a homemaker pushing women into the workplace diluting the labor market.
> -The "Keeping up with the Joneses" syndrome of materialism.
> -International labor market competition brought about by bad national trade policy driving wages down
> -Open borders importing low skill workers who drive down wages, and foreign students who can do the technical jobs Americans can't thanks to dumbed down schools.
> 
> Nope.. these couldn't have had ANY impact on the cost of living for the average family...
Click to expand...


In other words, I'm right on the fact I stated, which was my only point.  

You REALLY think most working mothers are doing it because they want to please some mythical concept of women's liberation?  jeezus.


----------



## Bern80

gekaap said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's where everyone goes wrong. They think that since Rand advocated basically selfishness that every and all means for achieving it were justified, including stealing from others. Unfortunately that is a contradiction. Because Rand also held that no one else has the right to what someone else has worked for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's a contradiction for me to follow Rand's ideas out all the way to the point where they contradict themselves, but Rand's ideas themselves do not constitute any contradiction?
Click to expand...


No her ideas don't contradict themselves. As with every Rand basher her you simply believe her ideals constitute something that simply isn't so.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy majority rule mob rule
> conflicts with
> Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
> BUB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So all the references over the years, by historians, to such things as Jeffersonian democracy, Jacksonian democracy,
> 
> all those people just aren't as smart as you??
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we
> A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> James Madison
> There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind
> (Federalist No. 63).
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
> 
> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Greatest Benjamin Franklin Quotes
Click to expand...


That's an impressive volley of gibberish but it didn't answer my question.

jeffersonian democracy vs jacksonian democracy - Google Search


----------



## Big Fitz

NYcarbineer said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cluelessness is not a valid defense, but it does make you look funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of the above is, Americans work harder and longer now than  they did 50 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> This couldn't have anything to do with the devaluation of the dollar over the last 50 years now, could it?  Oil for instance is almost identically priced today versus gold as it was 100 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The working/middle class 2 earner household (to make ends meet) is so  commonplace nowadays that young people don't even think twice about it  as one of the realities of life;  50 years ago, the household supported  by 1 earner was the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also, how much of this has to do with the following aspects:
> 
> -Women's liberation vilifying being a homemaker pushing women into the workplace diluting the labor market.
> -The "Keeping up with the Joneses" syndrome of materialism.
> -International labor market competition brought about by bad national trade policy driving wages down
> -Open borders importing low skill workers who drive down wages, and foreign students who can do the technical jobs Americans can't thanks to dumbed down schools.
> 
> Nope.. these couldn't have had ANY impact on the cost of living for the average family...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, I'm right on the fact I stated, which was my only point.
> 
> You REALLY think most working mothers are doing it because they want to please some mythical concept of women's liberation?  jeezus.
Click to expand...

You are right only in the outcome, not the cause.

And yes, many to most working mothers are doing it because they feel pressured to do so.  At least the ones I have met and hired in the past who aren't on welfare getting their babby munny from Uncle Sugar.

Had an image flash through my mind of the movie Thunderheart where Jimmy Fast Elk escapes from two federal agents.

"We have an agent down."
"Has the agent been shot?"
"No, the agent's been BIT by a fucking BADGER!"

There's no discussion that there's bleeding, it's just admitting that we have been wounded by doing something dumb economically and socially.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all the references over the years, by historians, to such things as Jeffersonian democracy, Jacksonian democracy,
> 
> all those people just aren't as smart as you??
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we
> A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> James Madison
> There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind
> (Federalist No. 63).
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
> 
> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Greatest Benjamin Franklin Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an impressive volley of gibberish but it didn't answer my question.
> 
> jeffersonian democracy vs jacksonian democracy - Google Search
Click to expand...


Are we

A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. 

B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy majority rule mob rule  conflicts with  Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.  BUB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So all the references over the years, by historians, to such things as Jeffersonian democracy, Jacksonian democracy, all those people just aren't as smart as you??  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we  A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> James Madison
> There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind
> (Federalist No. 63).
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
> 
> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Greatest Benjamin Franklin Quotes
Click to expand...


"A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."  So you cut out my corrections of your wrongheadedness, then you repost basically what I counseled you on, above, and you pretend it its yours?

You reposted my comments from #147  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...face-of-american-politics-10.html#post3416276 *Edited*   and pretended they are yours, bigrebnc.  Well, at least you are finally getting the point correctly (republicanism is the democratic election of our representatives to govern, whether directly such as for school boards, city commissions, state legislatures, the national legislature; and indirectly, such as voting for the Electoral College).

Well, you have proven to all of us without any doubt: (1) you have no integrity, (2) you are stupid, and (3) you are arrogant in that you think you can get away with it.

Amazing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all the references over the years, by historians, to such things as Jeffersonian democracy, Jacksonian democracy, all those people just aren't as smart as you??  lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we  A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> James Madison
> There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind
> (Federalist No. 63).
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
> 
> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Greatest Benjamin Franklin Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."  So you cut out my corrections of your wrongheadedness, then you repost basically what I counseled you on, above, and you pretend it its yours?
> 
> You reposted my comments from #147 on page 4 and pretended they are yours, bigrebnc.  Well, at least you are finally getting the point correctly (republicanism is the democratic election of our representatives to govern, whether directly such as for school boards, city commissions, state legislatures, the national legislature; and indirectly, such as voting for the Electoral College).
> 
> Well, you have proven to all of us without any doubt: (1) you have no integrity, (2) you are stupid, and (3) you are arrogant in that you think you can get away with it.
> 
> Amazing.
Click to expand...




> You reposted my comments from #147 on page 4 and pretended they are yours, bigrebnc.



You are full of shit, If I repost something of your's it's because I quoted your post to reply to it. Don't ever think I need your help Son.



> Well, at least you are finally getting the point correctly (republicanism is the democratic election of our representatives to govern, whether directly such as for school boards, city commissions, state legislatures, the national legislature; and indirectly, such as voting for the Electoral College).



Again your full of sit. I have never read one post that you have made that said America is aConstitutional republic. Everything I have you post is " America is a social Republic America is a democratic republic" So you are full of shit son.


JakeStarkey said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> Captilism has brought more people up and out of poverty than any government program ever did. That's a proven fact, but then again Liberals ignore the facts. Clinton's end of welfare as we know it, propelled people out of the projects and into the middle class, you ask why? Because you either sink or you swim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism and social democracy have been responsible for lifting the masses in western society from poverty.  Stay complete, please.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Everyone can read post 147 then trace what you have done in posts since then.  You took my material almost word for word.  You finally got it right.  However, either you stole it or you are stupid.

Or you are both.  Yes, I vote for that: you are both.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Everyone can read post 147 then trace what you have done in posts since then.  You took my material almost word for word.  You finally got it right.  However, either you stole it or you are stupid.
> 
> Or you are both.  Yes, I vote for that: you are both.



OMG YOU ARE A LITTLE TROLL IS THIS THE POST YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? If you are claiming that what I posted is from your post, then I say you stole it from me.



JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
> 
> Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Snap.  Now check posts 125 and 151 along with 147.  I guess you will have to gnaw your foot off.  You are stupid.

Good night.


----------



## Flopper

MaggieMae said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humm...I've never heard of this movie, I'm going to have to check it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the fountainhead is awesome too, there aren't too many movies i'll watch in black and white.
> she didn't write many novels.  we the living...
> you might also check out some of the interviews with ayn...
> 
> 
> live television...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dear, for someone so interested in reconnecting the past and applying it to the present, you don't like to watch black and white movies? I'm shocked. Do you realize before I-Phones, there were landlines with _<gasp>_ telephone numbers we had to force ourselves to DIAL? And before that, Bell Telephone employed thousands of people across the world just to connect us? We actually had to talk to an operator. "America" is rich in history, not just your selected versions of it. The film archives hold thousands of black and white movies which send political messages. Perhaps you should check a few out. But I'm sure they won't _all_ please your own brand of modern politics.
Click to expand...

I found the film a bit silly.  I don't think it did justice to a great novel,  however, I am not a fan of the modern individual versus those that worship tradition theme.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Snap.  Now check posts 125 and 151 along with 147.  I guess you will have to gnaw your foot off.  You are stupid.
> 
> Good night.



Run starkey lying little troll. I have always said America is a Constitutional Republic,


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Snap.  Now check posts 125 and 151 along with 147.  I guess you will have to gnaw your foot off.  You are stupid.
> 
> Good night.



All I can say is you are to stupid.



JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement.  Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic.  Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republican is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people.  You with me on this?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want a mob rule? After isn't that what a democracy is? Imagine 51 percent of the people like me in charge. Change the laws as we please.  I would repeal the NFA kill the military and place it back in the hands of the citizens militia.Just 51 percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our representatives (republicanism) generally are elected democratically, with certain exceptions such as the Electoral College.  Which you know.  But you are not interested in the constitutional republic, but only power.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> You are ignoring the constitutional and factual reality that "(2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. "
> 
> Americans will not permit militia soviets, bigreb, in the U.S., because that is what you are implying.





JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
> 
> Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
Click to expand...




bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
> 
> Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy majority rule mob rule
> conflicts with
> Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
> BUB
Click to expand...


----------



## Douger

It shall select murkinz.


----------



## gekaap

You know, it would really be poetic justice if the only thing accepted to buy tickets to see the movie were gold coins.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Big Fitz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cluelessness is not a valid defense, but it does make you look funny.
> 
> This couldn't have anything to do with the devaluation of the dollar over the last 50 years now, could it?  Oil for instance is almost identically priced today versus gold as it was 100 years ago.
> 
> Also, how much of this has to do with the following aspects:
> 
> -Women's liberation vilifying being a homemaker pushing women into the workplace diluting the labor market.
> -The "Keeping up with the Joneses" syndrome of materialism.
> -International labor market competition brought about by bad national trade policy driving wages down
> -Open borders importing low skill workers who drive down wages, and foreign students who can do the technical jobs Americans can't thanks to dumbed down schools.
> 
> Nope.. these couldn't have had ANY impact on the cost of living for the average family...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, I'm right on the fact I stated, which was my only point.
> 
> You REALLY think most working mothers are doing it because they want to please some mythical concept of women's liberation?  jeezus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are right only in the outcome, not the cause.
> 
> And yes, many to most working mothers are doing it because they feel pressured to do so.  At least the ones I have met and hired in the past who aren't on welfare getting their babby munny from Uncle Sugar.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So most of the CONSERVATIVE working class working mothers out there are only working because they've bought into some radical feminist propaganda that they're supposed to work?

How many working conservative mothers HERE will step up and agree with you, citing their personal situation?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Question for Christian Conservative fans of Ayn Rand:

The Bible says money is the root of all evil.

Ayn Rand says money is the root of all good.

Who's right?


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> [Are we
> 
> A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.



Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy are two recognized forms of DEMOCRACY.

So, in short, you are talking nonsense.

*republic, 

form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Are we
> 
> A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy are two recognized forms of DEMOCRACY.
> 
> So, in short, you are talking nonsense.
> 
> *republic,
> 
> form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.*
Click to expand...


It seems you are to stupid to know that the people DO NOT decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums, But our representatives are elected by the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. That is why we are a CONSTITUTIONAL RUPBLIC.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Are we
> 
> A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy are two recognized forms of DEMOCRACY.
> 
> So, in short, you are talking nonsense.
> 
> *republic,
> 
> form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you are to stupid to know that the people DO NOT decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums, But our representatives are elected by the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. That is why we are a CONSTITUTIONAL RUPBLIC.
Click to expand...


We are a representative democracy as described, in blue, above.

Nobody with a brain agrees with you.  Give it up.


----------



## mudwhistle

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all the references over the years, by historians, to such things as Jeffersonian democracy, Jacksonian democracy, all those people just aren't as smart as you??  lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we  A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> James Madison
> There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind
> (Federalist No. 63).
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
> 
> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Greatest Benjamin Franklin Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."  So you cut out my corrections of your wrongheadedness, then you repost basically what I counseled you on, above, and you pretend it its yours?
> 
> You reposted my comments from #147 on page 4 and pretended they are yours, bigrebnc.  Well, at least you are finally getting the point correctly (republicanism is the democratic election of our representatives to govern, whether directly such as for school boards, city commissions, state legislatures, the national legislature; and indirectly, such as voting for the Electoral College).
> 
> Well, you have proven to all of us without any doubt: (1) you have no integrity, (2) you are stupid, and (3) you are arrogant in that you think you can get away with it.
> 
> Amazing.
Click to expand...


What you have proven is that you are have narcissist personality disorder.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

mudwhistle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we  A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> James Madison
> There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind
> (Federalist No. 63).
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> 
> The Greatest Benjamin Franklin Quotes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."  So you cut out my corrections of your wrongheadedness, then you repost basically what I counseled you on, above, and you pretend it its yours?
> 
> You reposted my comments from #147 on page 4 and pretended they are yours, bigrebnc.  Well, at least you are finally getting the point correctly (republicanism is the democratic election of our representatives to govern, whether directly such as for school boards, city commissions, state legislatures, the national legislature; and indirectly, such as voting for the Electoral College).
> 
> Well, you have proven to all of us without any doubt: (1) you have no integrity, (2) you are stupid, and (3) you are arrogant in that you think you can get away with it.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you have proven is that you are have narcissist personality disorder.
Click to expand...


He accused me of plagiarism, I think the mods should investigate. And take appropriate action against me if the accusation is true or against starkey who made the charge and lied.


----------



## Big Fitz

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Are we
> 
> A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy are two recognized forms of DEMOCRACY.
> 
> So, in short, you are talking nonsense.
> 
> *republic,
> 
> form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.*
Click to expand...

mmmm hare splitting for failed political point.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all the references over the years, by historians, to such things as Jeffersonian democracy, Jacksonian democracy, all those people just aren't as smart as you??  lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we  A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> James Madison
> There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind
> (Federalist No. 63).
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
> 
> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Greatest Benjamin Franklin Quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."  So you cut out my corrections of your wrongheadedness, then you repost basically what I counseled you on, above, and you pretend it its yours?
> 
> You reposted my comments from #147  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...face-of-american-politics-10.html#post3416276 *Edited*   and pretended they are yours, bigrebnc.  Well, at least you are finally getting the point correctly (republicanism is the democratic election of our representatives to govern, whether directly such as for school boards, city commissions, state legislatures, the national legislature; and indirectly, such as voting for the Electoral College).
> 
> Well, you have proven to all of us without any doubt: (1) you have no integrity, (2) you are stupid, and (3) you are arrogant in that you think you can get away with it.
> 
> Amazing.
Click to expand...

*
Jake, You are misreading Intention here, and coming to a False Conclusion. Your Accusation of Plagiarism is Wrong.*


----------



## mudwhistle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."  So you cut out my corrections of your wrongheadedness, then you repost basically what I counseled you on, above, and you pretend it its yours?
> 
> You reposted my comments from #147 on page 4 and pretended they are yours, bigrebnc.  Well, at least you are finally getting the point correctly (republicanism is the democratic election of our representatives to govern, whether directly such as for school boards, city commissions, state legislatures, the national legislature; and indirectly, such as voting for the Electoral College).
> 
> Well, you have proven to all of us without any doubt: (1) you have no integrity, (2) you are stupid, and (3) you are arrogant in that you think you can get away with it.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have proven is that you are have narcissist personality disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He accused me of plagiarism, I think the mods should investigate. And take appropriate action against me if the accusation is true or against starkey who made the charge and lied.
Click to expand...


He's living on his own planet where he makes up the rules as he goes along.

He and the Bass are like two peas in a pod only the Bass talks about race constantly. You put em together and you get Barrack H. Obama.


----------



## mudwhistle

Big Fitz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Are we
> 
> A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy are two recognized forms of DEMOCRACY.
> 
> So, in short, you are talking nonsense.
> 
> *republic,
> 
> form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mmmm hare splitting for failed political point.
Click to expand...


Awwww....what a cute bunny.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

mudwhistle said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy are two recognized forms of DEMOCRACY.
> 
> So, in short, you are talking nonsense.
> 
> *republic,
> 
> form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.*
> 
> 
> 
> mmmm hare splitting for failed political point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awwww....what a cute bunny.
Click to expand...


Yep, it's praying it's not tomrrows lunch


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the constitutional and factual reality that "(2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. "
> 
> Americans will not permit militia soviets, bigreb, in the U.S., because that is what you are implying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every state has a republican system of government.
> 
> Because you don't like what the majority decides doesn't matter at all washamerican.
> 
> *militia soviets* will not be allowed to rule.
Click to expand...

 
Jake? You are an idiot.


----------



## washamericom

JakeStarkey said:


> Everyone can read post 147 then trace what you have done in posts since then.  You took my material almost word for word.  You finally got it right.  However, either you stole it or you are stupid.
> 
> Or you are both.  Yes, I vote for that: you are both.



with whom are you "voting" ?, see, this is a good example of the authoritarian(ism) that miss rand wrote about. (good morning)

if plagiarism was the criterion for firing, this place would be tumbleweeds.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> I will answer for myself. Because I believe in a constitutional republic that its representatives are generally elected democratically, bigrebnc throws terms he does not understand around (like stalinist), because he apparently wants militia units to rule our country. bigreb, what are you? You are not a constitutionalist, that is for sure.


 
And you throw around incipid terms as *'soviet militias'*...You therefore out yourself and what you think of the people defending themselves against tyrants to preserve their liberty. The Founders understood what was at stake...

Namely:

_"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."~*Thomas Jefferson*_

I think it is you that refuses to understand true Liberty, what the Founders gave us, and the means to preserve it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will answer for myself. Because I believe in a constitutional republic that its representatives are generally elected democratically, bigrebnc throws terms he does not understand around (like stalinist), because he apparently wants militia units to rule our country. bigreb, what are you? You are not a constitutionalist, that is for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you throw around incipid terms as *'soviet militias'*...You therefore out yourself and what you think of the people defending themselves against tyrants to preserve their liberty. The Founders understood what was at stake...
> 
> Namely:
> 
> _"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."~*Thomas Jefferson*_
> 
> I think it is you that refuses to understand true Liberty, what the Founders gave us, and the means to preserve it.
Click to expand...


True story


----------



## Big Fitz

washamericom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone can read post 147 then trace what you have done in posts since then.  You took my material almost word for word.  You finally got it right.  However, either you stole it or you are stupid.
> 
> Or you are both.  Yes, I vote for that: you are both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with whom are you "voting" ?, see, this is a good example of the authoritarian(ism) that miss rand wrote about. (good morning)
> 
> if plagiarism was the criterion for firing, this place would be tumbleweeds.
Click to expand...

I can't read his posts... I've got him on ignore.


----------



## washamericom

Big Fitz said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone can read post 147 then trace what you have done in posts since then.  You took my material almost word for word.  You finally got it right.  However, either you stole it or you are stupid.
> 
> Or you are both.  Yes, I vote for that: you are both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with whom are you "voting" ?, see, this is a good example of the authoritarian(ism) that miss rand wrote about. (good morning)
> 
> if plagiarism was the criterion for firing, this place would be tumbleweeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't read his posts... I've got him on ignore.
Click to expand...


we can't quit now fitz, i think they're starting to come around... like the movie, i think we can convince the "american "people" that obama is the weakest form of president (and greatest economic disaster) since the great depression

"i'm sitting here watching chris matthews, what a dick, and his panel are dicks."    scott e.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snap.  Now check posts 125 and 151 along with 147.  I guess you will have to gnaw your foot off.  You are stupid.
> 
> Good night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run starkey lying little troll. I have always said America is a Constitutional Republic,
Click to expand...


Got you good.  Simply don't steal peoples' stuff, say they are not sayin what they actually are saying, then pretend the material is yours.  I will out you every time you do it.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snap. Now check posts 125 and 151 along with 147. I guess you will have to gnaw your foot off. You are stupid.
> 
> Good night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run starkey lying little troll. I have always said America is a Constitutional Republic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got you good. Simply don't steal peoples' stuff, say they are not sayin what they actually are saying, then pretend the material is yours. I will out you every time you do it.
Click to expand...

 
Your problem is? _He didn't._


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will answer for myself. Because I believe in a constitutional republic that its representatives are generally elected democratically, bigrebnc throws terms he does not understand around (like stalinist), because he apparently wants militia units to rule our country. bigreb, what are you? You are not a constitutionalist, that is for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you throw around incipid terms as *'soviet militias'*...You therefore out yourself and what you think of the people defending themselves against tyrants to preserve their liberty. The Founders understood what was at stake...
> 
> Namely:
> 
> _"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."~*Thomas Jefferson*_
> 
> I think it is you that refuses to understand true Liberty, what the Founders gave us, and the means to preserve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True story
Click to expand...


Words have meaning, behavior has consequences.  You both get mad, and fitz runs away, because I hold you do what you say and do.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you throw around incipid terms as *'soviet militias'*...You therefore out yourself and what you think of the people defending themselves against tyrants to preserve their liberty. The Founders understood what was at stake...
> 
> Namely:
> 
> _"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."~*Thomas Jefferson*_
> 
> I think it is you that refuses to understand true Liberty, what the Founders gave us, and the means to preserve it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meaning, behavior has consequences. You both get mad, and fitz runs away, because I hold you do what you say and do.
Click to expand...

 *YOU* don't hold anyone to _squat._


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snap.  Now check posts 125 and 151 along with 147.  I guess you will have to gnaw your foot off.  You are stupid.
> 
> Good night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run starkey lying little troll. I have always said America is a Constitutional Republic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got you good.  Simply don't steal peoples' stuff, say they are not sayin what they actually are saying, then pretend the material is yours.  I will out you every time you do it.
Click to expand...

All you did was show how big of a lying troll you are. Take what Intense had to say to you.



Intense said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we  A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> James Madison
> There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind
> (Federalist No. 63).
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> 
> The Greatest Benjamin Franklin Quotes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."  So you cut out my corrections of your wrongheadedness, then you repost basically what I counseled you on, above, and you pretend it its yours?
> 
> You reposted my comments from #147  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...face-of-american-politics-10.html#post3416276 *Edited*   and pretended they are yours, bigrebnc.  Well, at least you are finally getting the point correctly (republicanism is the democratic election of our representatives to govern, whether directly such as for school boards, city commissions, state legislatures, the national legislature; and indirectly, such as voting for the Electoral College).
> 
> Well, you have proven to all of us without any doubt: (1) you have no integrity, (2) you are stupid, and (3) you are arrogant in that you think you can get away with it.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Jake, You are misreading Intention here, and coming to a False Conclusion. Your Accusation of Plagiarism is Wrong.*
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you throw around incipid terms as *'soviet militias'*...You therefore out yourself and what you think of the people defending themselves against tyrants to preserve their liberty. The Founders understood what was at stake...
> 
> Namely:
> 
> _"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."~*Thomas Jefferson*_
> 
> I think it is you that refuses to understand true Liberty, what the Founders gave us, and the means to preserve it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meaning, behavior has consequences.  You both get mad, and fitz runs away, because I hold you do what you say and do.
Click to expand...


I get mad because you are dishonest. You are lowest of the low you are worse than rdean and truth matters, combined.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Big Fitz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Are we
> 
> A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
> 
> B.  democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy are two recognized forms of DEMOCRACY.
> 
> So, in short, you are talking nonsense.
> 
> *republic,
> 
> form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mmmm hare splitting for failed political point.
> 
> http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/funny-pictures-bunny-is-sad.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]
> 
> Pointing out that the U. S. is in fact a democracy is hair splitting?
Click to expand...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy are two recognized forms of DEMOCRACY.
> 
> So, in short, you are talking nonsense.
> 
> *republic,
> 
> form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.*
> 
> 
> 
> mmmm hare splitting for failed political point.
> 
> http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/funny-pictures-bunny-is-sad.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]
> 
> Pointing out that the U. S. is in fact a democracy is hair splitting?[/QUOTE]
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="5"]DO NOT [/SIZE][/COLOR]decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> mmmm hare splitting for failed political point.
> 
> http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/funny-pictures-bunny-is-sad.jpg[/IMG[/quote]
> 
> Pointing out that the U. S. is in fact a democracy is hair splitting?[/quote]
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people [COLOR=red][SIZE=5]DO NOT [/SIZE][/COLOR]decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.[/quote]
> 
> They'll understand one day when they are left to understand that their liberty has been stolen from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Words have meaning, behavior has consequences. You both get mad, and fitz runs away, because I hold you do what you say and do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *YOU* don't hold anyone to _squat._
Click to expand...


Live with being a T turd.  You are what you write here, and you are sewer.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Run starkey lying little troll. I have always said America is a Constitutional Republic,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got you good.  Simply don't steal peoples' stuff, say they are not sayin what they actually are saying, then pretend the material is yours.  I will out you every time you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you did was show how big of a lying troll you are. Take what Intense had to say to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A. Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."  So you cut out my corrections of your wrongheadedness, then you repost basically what I counseled you on, above, and you pretend it its yours?
> 
> You reposted my comments from #147  http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...face-of-american-politics-10.html#post3416276 *Edited*   and pretended they are yours, bigrebnc.  Well, at least you are finally getting the point correctly (republicanism is the democratic election of our representatives to govern, whether directly such as for school boards, city commissions, state legislatures, the national legislature; and indirectly, such as voting for the Electoral College).
> 
> Well, you have proven to all of us without any doubt: (1) you have no integrity, (2) you are stupid, and (3) you are arrogant in that you think you can get away with it.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Jake, You are misreading Intention here, and coming to a False Conclusion. Your Accusation of Plagiarism is Wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


A clear reading of the posts reveal what bigrebnc did.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Words have meaning, behavior has consequences.  You both get mad, and fitz runs away, because I hold you do what you say and do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get mad because you are dishonest. You are lowest of the low you are worse than rdean and truth matters, combined.
Click to expand...


I hold you to your actions and you get mad because I expose your dishonesty.

I always will.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> mmmm hare splitting for failed political point.
> 
> http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/funny-pictures-bunny-is-sad.jpg[/IMG[/quote]
> 
> Pointing out that the U. S. is in fact a democracy is hair splitting?[/QUOTE]
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="5"]DO NOT [/SIZE][/COLOR]decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.[/QUOTE]
> 
> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.
> 
> Secondly, none of what you said changes the FACT that the U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, nor does it change the fact that you are wrong to believe or claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> mmmm hare splitting for failed political point.
> 
> http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/funny-pictures-bunny-is-sad.jpg[/IMG[/quote]
> 
> Pointing out that the U. S. is in fact a democracy is hair splitting?[/QUOTE]
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="5"]DO NOT [/SIZE][/COLOR]decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Dead wrong as always, not just as usual.  The constitutional process runs by republican government generally decided by democratic votes: such as for the House and the Senate, for state legislatures, for local school boards, etc.
> 
> You mistake "constitutional" for "republican".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the U. S. is in fact a democracy is hair splitting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people DO NOT decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They'll understand one day when they are left to understand that their liberty has been stolen from them.
Click to expand...


We will not let you steal our liberty; you are right about that.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people DO NOT decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll understand one day when they are left to understand that their liberty has been stolen from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will not let you steal our liberty; you are right about that.
Click to expand...

 
Who's WE? And what stealing of liberty? You have a fuckin' FROG in yer pocket?

Jake? Yer _pathetic._


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the U. S. is in fact a democracy is hair splitting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people DO NOT decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.
> 
> Secondly, none of what you said changes the FACT that the U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, nor does it change the fact that you are wrong to believe or claim otherwise.
Click to expand...




> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.


Thanks for agreeing with me that was are a Constitutional Republic. Without that the majority would rule.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the U. S. is in fact a democracy is hair splitting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people DO NOT decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead wrong as always, not just as usual.  The constitutional process runs by republican government generally decided by democratic votes: such as for the House and the Senate, for state legislatures, for local school boards, etc.
> 
> You mistake "constitutional" for "republican".
Click to expand...


Of course anyone that agree's with a liberal is nothing but a liberal. You are a far left wacko futher than Longhner.


----------



## Toro

Atlas Shrugged with not change the face of American politics.

Next topic.


----------



## The T

Toro said:


> Atlas Shrugged with not change the face of American politics.
> 
> Next topic.


 
Maybe, maybe not. It _might _get people to re-examine a few things, and challange their world views, and even themselves and what they have been taught from a historical standpoint.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people DO NOT decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.
> 
> Secondly, none of what you said changes the FACT that the U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, nor does it change the fact that you are wrong to believe or claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with me that was are a Constitutional Republic. Without that the majority would rule.
Click to expand...


The majority does rule.  A big enough majority can amend the Constitution to say anything they want it to say.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.
> 
> Secondly, none of what you said changes the FACT that the U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, nor does it change the fact that you are wrong to believe or claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with me that was are a Constitutional Republic. Without that the majority would rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority does rule.  A big enough majority can amend the Constitution to say anything they want it to say.
Click to expand...



Not so sadly you are one of the minorites. If that was true, how many amendments have we had in the last 80 years?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll understand one day when they are left to understand that their liberty has been stolen from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will not let you steal our liberty; you are right about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's WE? And what stealing of liberty? You have a fuckin' FROG in yer pocket?
> Jake? Yer _pathetic._
Click to expand...


You got nothing, huh.  Militia wacks need not apply.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people DO NOT decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.
> 
> Secondly, none of what you said changes the FACT that the U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, nor does it change the fact that you are wrong to believe or claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with me that was are a Constitutional Republic. Without that the majority would rule.
Click to expand...


The majority does rule in a constitutional republic in accordance with the law.  The majority can always amend the Constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I pointed out that you are wrong. The people DO NOT decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. The majority does not get to dictate the rules. The Constitution does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dead wrong as always, not just as usual.  The constitutional process runs by republican government generally decided by democratic votes: such as for the House and the Senate, for state legislatures, for local school boards, etc.
> 
> You mistake "constitutional" for "republican".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course anyone that agree's with a liberal is nothing but a liberal. You are a far left wacko futher than Longhner.
Click to expand...


You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian.  Don't ever think you understand the Constitution.  Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.

In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will answer for myself.  Because I believe in a constitutional republic that its representatives are generally elected democratically, bigrebnc throws terms he does not understand around (like stalinist), because he apparently wants militia units to rule our country.  bigreb, what are you?  You are not a constitutionalist, that is for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that calls America a democratic Republic, and in this thread you called it a social democracy. You're contridicting yourself their sport.
Click to expand...


It is a social democracy. What do you think you're doing when you post on message boards? You're exercising your right to free speech in a social forum. They're all just *words*, you know.


----------



## Bern80

gekaap said:


> You know, it would really be poetic justice if the only thing accepted to buy tickets to see the movie were gold coins.



How so? Are you going to have the integrity to make sure what you say is accurate or are you content to keep spewing your inaccurate crap?


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> bill gates, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg... only interested in profit... howard hughs, the rockefellers...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first two spend billions of their own money on their philanthropic projects. Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that these great builders of corporations are interested in things other than profit. that they are compassionate and social
> 
> you know... with great wealth (created by capitalism)
> 
> also "i think happiness is a by product if you are doing everything else you're supposed to do" johnny carson
> 
> when did a simple majority become "mob rule" it wasn't a mob that voted in obama.... was it ?
Click to expand...


I wasn't the one who called a majority "mob rule." I believe you did. I don't think we do have "mob rule," so if you don't either, then I don't know what you're talking about. And Johnny Carson was right. Read what he said again. The question becomes what ARE you "supposed to do," from a moral standpoint?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.
> 
> Secondly, none of what you said changes the FACT that the U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, nor does it change the fact that you are wrong to believe or claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the Constitution protects minority rights because a MAJORITY decided that the Constitution would do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with me that was are a Constitutional Republic. Without that the majority would rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The majority does rule in a constitutional republic in accordance with the law.  The majority can always amend the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You see one thing wrong with your socialist opinion is that because the minority is protected under the rule of law we are a Constitutional Republic.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dead wrong as always, not just as usual.  The constitutional process runs by republican government generally decided by democratic votes: such as for the House and the Senate, for state legislatures, for local school boards, etc.
> 
> You mistake "constitutional" for "republican".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course anyone that agree's with a liberal is nothing but a liberal. You are a far left wacko futher than Longhner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian.  Don't ever think you understand the Constitution.  Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.
> 
> In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.
Click to expand...


You are a liberal socialist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will answer for myself.  Because I believe in a constitutional republic that its representatives are generally elected democratically, bigrebnc throws terms he does not understand around (like stalinist), because he apparently wants militia units to rule our country.  bigreb, what are you?  You are not a constitutionalist, that is for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that calls America a democratic Republic, and in this thread you called it a social democracy. You're contridicting yourself their sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a social democracy. What do you think you're doing when you post on message boards? You're exercising your right to free speech in a social forum. They're all just *words*, you know.
Click to expand...


You see one thing wrong with your socialist opinion is that because the minority is protected under the rule of law we are a Constitutional Republic.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dead wrong as always, not just as usual. The constitutional process runs by republican government generally decided by democratic votes: such as for the House and the Senate, for state legislatures, for local school boards, etc.
> 
> You mistake "constitutional" for "republican".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course anyone that agree's with a liberal is nothing but a liberal. You are a far left wacko futher than Longhner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian. Don't ever think you understand the Constitution. Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.
> 
> In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.
Click to expand...

 
I find it interesting that such a HACK as you that doesn't and CAN'T tell the truth about himself is professing from some high horse what people are...and cannot support his assertion.

Jokey Fakey? You remain the largest JOKE on these boards.


----------



## MaggieMae

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, in the last decade we've witnessed UNhappy workers because their employers don't care anymore about employee morale (again, a generalization).
> 
> When wages remain flat while bonuses for the top get increased, or people get fired from an 8-hour job and replaced by two part-timers just so a company won't have to pay overtime or benefits, the rest of the staff gets restless. And eventually the product itself suffers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have, like, an example or two to support your absurd pablum.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, that would take effort, well beyond your ability.
Click to expand...


Read it, then go play with yourself, probably the only useful thing you know how to do.

Longer Hours, Less Pay - Labor Department


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course anyone that agree's with a liberal is nothing but a liberal. You are a far left wacko futher than Longhner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian. Don't ever think you understand the Constitution. Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.
> 
> In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that such a HACK as you that doesn't and CAN'T tell the truth about himself is professing from some high horse what people are...and cannot support his assertion.
> 
> Jokey Fakey? You remain the largest JOKE on these boards.
Click to expand...


I tried to rep you but it would not let me. True story


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> But of course your elected official(s) represent a lot of _other_ people, not just YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. Meaning the minority rights are also protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think wisconsin is a good example. the democrat party and the publik unions were outmaneuvered, and they didn't like it. just as we were outmaneuvered by the big three obama reid pelosi) over healthcare, we didn't like it, but it was legal (not very ethical)
> this all according to the law, and subsequent judicial review (if necessary)
> by the way good catch on "they didn't mean the republican party" i was dangling a literal motzaball. u r sharp maggie
Click to expand...


While the unions were "out-maneuvered," the rest of the general public doesn't like what went on in Wisconsin. This has become a national issue now, which appears to be backfiring big time against the Repubicans.

UNIONS AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES:
Work


----------



## MaggieMae

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders didn't mean the Republican PARTY, a/k/a the GOP. At the time of the signing of The Constitution, there were only two parties: The Federalists and (ironically) the Democratic-Republican Party! _*It wasn't until early in the 20th Century*_ that the Democrats and Republicans split into the two parties we now know. Geesh--do some homework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...the Republican Party was founded in 1854.
> 
> _THE 19th Century._
> As usual YOU are the one that needs to do some homework: Intellectual Lightweight.
> 
> You're fucking pitiful.
Click to expand...


I was guessing, but I'm more correct than WA. So? Sue me.

*What is your fucking ISSUE with me, personally? Grow up, little man. 
*


----------



## washamericom

The T said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged with not change the face of American politics.
> 
> Next topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. It _might _get people to re-examine a few things, and challange their world views, and even themselves and what they have been taught from a historical standpoint.
Click to expand...


this is a good example of liberal debate. "no, that's it, next subject", seems dogmatic to me.
T you nailed it, i believe this political philosophy will be well received, partly because it's great, but mostly because i think there are still alot of people that haven't heard it, that will like it. as my dad used to say; 
"let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes"

reasons like... Amazing. Most public school kids like me never even heard of the book.


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you base this assumption on what evidence?  Most college students or professors EVER read Ayn Rand.  She's darn near persona non grata in the colleges these days.
> 
> I had to choose to read it on my own as an adult and that was only after someone tipped me off that it was an interesting read.  The Fountainhead took me 4 tries before I finally got into it, and then I LOVED it, regardless of it's stilted nature.  Atlas Shrugged I consumed in 4 days as hard as it was to read the whole John Galt Speaks section... MAN that was dry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had to read it in high school. Perhaps most college professors are silly enough to believe that it still might happen that high school students get a good education. I read it as part of my Economics 101 course over a six-month period, where we had pop quizzes on the chapters as they applied to known applications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing.  Most public school kids like me never even heard of the book.
Click to expand...


I was blessed with two of the best: My English teacher and Economics/Bookkeeping teacher in my senior year. My American History teacher, not so much. If you could get him talking football, class was over. I had to learn history on my own, much later.


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders didn't mean the Republican PARTY, a/k/a the GOP. At the time of the signing of The Constitution, there were only two parties: The Federalists and (ironically) the Democratic-Republican Party! _*It wasn't until early in the 20th Century*_ that the Democrats and Republicans split into the two parties we now know. Geesh--do some homework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...the Republican Party was founded in 1854.
> 
> _THE 19th Century._
> As usual YOU are the one that needs to do some homework: Intellectual Lightweight.
> 
> You're fucking pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta love the Election of 1860.  4 major candidates and the shambles of the Whig party, states rights, slavery and secession in the balance.  The election of Lincoln guaranteed a civil war after the mess that Buchanan left when leaving office.  I love Buchanan's quote to Lincoln as they met briefly to change power:
> 
> "If you are as happy a man to take the office of President as I am to leave it, you are a very happy man!"
Click to expand...


Or Bush's private memo to Gore after the 911 attacks: "If you still want the job, it's yours."
(That was just a joke of course.)


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a miniseries starting 3-27.  Mildred Pierce.
> 
> Now THAT looks really good, whatever happened to miniseries' anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> Death by Cable.
Click to expand...


Messes like "Lost" ruined the concept, finally.


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...what if one is most happy when one is also unproductive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with Rand.  Ultimately she's forced to accept contradictions, or be rejected completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die.  Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people.  Or die.  that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.
> 
> The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person.  Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam.  At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest.  Most aren't.
> 
> So, your premise is flawed.
Click to expand...


I happen to agree with you. But the unanswered question still remains, what to do about it?  The only workable solution is to slowly wean those unproductive people OFF their support systems. And it won't happen overnight because there are too many unknowns: High unemployment, children who are unaware of the positions of their parent(s) who rely on life-sustaining programs, etc.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with me that was are a Constitutional Republic. Without that the majority would rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does rule in a constitutional republic in accordance with the law.  The majority can always amend the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see one thing wrong with your socialist opinion is that because the minority is protected under the rule of law we are a Constitutional Republic.
Click to expand...


The  majority can amend the Constitution.  For instance, a super majority could get rid of the 2nd Amendment.  I would not support that, but it is a good example to help you put matters in perspective.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course anyone that agree's with a liberal is nothing but a liberal. You are a far left wacko futher than Longhner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian.  Don't ever think you understand the Constitution.  Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.
> 
> In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a liberal socialist.
Click to expand...

  How so?


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders didn't mean the Republican PARTY, a/k/a the GOP. At the time of the signing of The Constitution, there were only two parties: The Federalists and (ironically) the Democratic-Republican Party! _*It wasn't until early in the 20th Century*_ that the Democrats and Republicans split into the two parties we now know. Geesh--do some homework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...the Republican Party was founded in 1854.
> 
> _THE 19th Century._
> As usual YOU are the one that needs to do some homework: Intellectual Lightweight.
> 
> You're fucking pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was guessing, but I'm more correct than WA. So? Sue me.
> 
> *What is your fucking ISSUE with me, personally? Grow up, little man.
> *
Click to expand...


"the rest of the general public" 

i don't _think_ so eminem....

 and.....  Read it, then go play with yourself, probably the only useful thing you know how to do.   see.. ayn rand would say "how does this benefit *the rest of us* in society, would he be paid for such unworldly acts?"

i liked the movie tickets would have to be bought with gold, pretty funny.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course anyone that agree's with a liberal is nothing but a liberal. You are a far left wacko futher than Longhner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian. Don't ever think you understand the Constitution. Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.
> 
> In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that such a HACK as you that doesn't and CAN'T tell the truth about himself is professing from some high horse what people are...and cannot support his assertion.
> 
> Jokey Fakey? You remain the largest JOKE on these boards.
Click to expand...


Says the biggest joke next to bigrebnc.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian.  Don't ever think you understand the Constitution.  Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.
> 
> In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liberal socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...


He's using the same measuring stick that rightwingers used to declare John McCain a liberal.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with me that was are a Constitutional Republic. Without that the majority would rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does rule.  A big enough majority can amend the Constitution to say anything they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not so sadly you are one of the minorites. If that was true, how many amendments have we had in the last 80 years?
Click to expand...


How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority does rule.  A big enough majority can amend the Constitution to say anything they want it to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so sadly you are one of the minorites. If that was true, how many amendments have we had in the last 80 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
Click to expand...


How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Let's get back to the thread topic, Ayn Rand.

Let's get back to her atheism, and here contempt for faith, for starters.

Is that the changing of the face of politics we're going to see after this stupid movie comes out?

...a rejection of faith as a meaningful component of American politics??


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so sadly you are one of the minorites. If that was true, how many amendments have we had in the last 80 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
Click to expand...

he doesn't know.

Let me Help:

*US Constitution and Amendments*


----------



## washamericom

Jokey Fakey? You remain the largest JOKE on these boards. 
this is true... where _*has*_ dante been ?

ratified by three quarters of the states, including the ones that think they can secede from the union.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian.  Don't ever think you understand the Constitution.  Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.
> 
> In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liberal socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...


My word, it's gold compared to your tin valued word.

As I said if I had liberals defending me as much as they do you I would have to change my point of view. If a person agrees with you, it's because they have the same belief system.


----------



## The T

NYcarbineer said:


> Let's get back to the thread topic, Ayn Rand.
> 
> Let's get back to her atheism, and here contempt for faith, for starters.
> 
> Is that the changing of the face of politics we're going to see after this stupid movie comes out?
> 
> ...a rejection of faith as a meaningful component of American politics??


 What contempt...and Faith? Since WHEN did *YOU* become an accolyte for faith since I have seen you do nothing but laugh at it?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he doesn't know.
> 
> Let me Help:
> 
> *US Constitution and Amendments*
Click to expand...


Thank God for the Constitutional Republic. because the individual right would not exist anymore. I believe it would have been taken away in 2007 complete.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so sadly you are one of the minorites. If that was true, how many amendments have we had in the last 80 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
Click to expand...


Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.

If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.

Good luck.


----------



## The T

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
Click to expand...

 
it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. It is RARE...and difficult by design.

Progressives would rather obfuscate it by Fiat...


----------



## NYcarbineer

The T said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to the thread topic, Ayn Rand.
> 
> Let's get back to her atheism, and here contempt for faith, for starters.
> 
> Is that the changing of the face of politics we're going to see after this stupid movie comes out?
> 
> ...a rejection of faith as a meaningful component of American politics??
> 
> 
> 
> What contempt...and Faith? Since WHEN did *YOU* become an accolyte for faith since I have seen you do nothing but laugh at it?
Click to expand...


Were you aware that Ayn Rand was an atheist?  Were you aware that Ayn Rand was adamantly pro-choice?  Were you aware that Ayn Rand despised Ronald Reagan?

For that matter, were you aware that Ayn Rand rejected any notion that she was a conservative?


----------



## NYcarbineer

The T said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. It is RARE...and difficult by design.
> 
> Progressives would rather obfuscate it by Fiat...
Click to expand...


Conservative Presidents are rare too.  Does that mean that Constitutionally, they are difficult by design?

lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
Click to expand...


My question is dead on your statement not so much


> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?



A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.


----------



## washamericom

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
Click to expand...


it's like a super delegate on steroids, a democrat party exclusive


----------



## The T

NYcarbineer said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. It is RARE...and difficult by design.
> 
> Progressives would rather obfuscate it by Fiat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative Presidents are rare too. Does that mean that Constitutionally, they are difficult by design?
> 
> lol
Click to expand...

 Are you pretending to be crafty? Pardon me while I remain unamused, and un_impressed._


----------



## JakeStarkey

NYcarbineer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liberal socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's using the same measuring stick that rightwingers used to declare John McCain a liberal.
Click to expand...


They are not right wingers.  

They are extremently far right morally depraved individuals who pretend to be Republican and responsible libertarians or conservatives.  According to them, Joe Scarborough is a liberal, Mitt Romney is a liberal, and, shoot, Ronnie Reagan is a liberal (never would have defended a defense of marriage law and was cozy with the soviets in removing the barriers between east and west.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so sadly you are one of the minorites. If that was true, how many amendments have we had in the last 80 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
Click to expand...


Even once destroys your silly argument.


----------



## JakeStarkey

washamericom said:


> Jokey Fakey? You remain the largest JOKE on these boards.
> this is true... where _*has*_ dante been ?
> 
> ratified by three quarters of the states, including the ones that think they can secede from the union.



Yep, which djepend on democratic votes.  You are a joke right along with T and bigreb.  You guys always, I mean always, walk into the wall.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The T said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. It is RARE...and difficult by design.
> 
> Progressives would rather obfuscate it by Fiat...
Click to expand...


Such change rests on democratic, constitutional process.

Step off, young man.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. It is RARE...and difficult by design.
> 
> Progressives would rather obfuscate it by Fiat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such change rests on democratic, constitutional process.
> 
> Step off, young man.
Click to expand...

 
Son? First? DUH...and second?
*YOU* are in _no position _to tell anyone to do anything much less _"step Off"._


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even once destroys your silly argument.
Click to expand...


Not in the context in the way ny posted. so move along liar.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's using the same measuring stick that rightwingers used to declare John McCain a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not right wingers.
> 
> They are extremently far right morally depraved individuals who pretend to be Republican and responsible libertarians or conservatives.  According to them, Joe Scarborough is a liberal, Mitt Romney is a liberal, and, shoot, Ronnie Reagan is a liberal (never would have defended a defense of marriage law and was cozy with the soviets in removing the barriers between east and west.
Click to expand...


holy shit bat man who the fuck called Ronald Reagan a liberal?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Is refusal to defend defense of marriage and working with the soviets conservative positions.

Nah.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> Is refusal to defend defense of marriage and working with the soviets conservative positions.
> 
> Nah.


 
*Psychobabble*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, T, you are a babbler.  That is what far right wacks pretending to be responsible conservative or libertarians do, like you: they babble.  Ronnie Reagan would have nothing to do with your kind.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, T, you are a babbler. That is what far right wacks pretending to be responsible conservative or libertarians do, like you: they babble. Ronnie Reagan would have nothing to do with your kind.


 
*Content Wholly Ignored*

(Ain't worth my time except this post).


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, T, you are a babbler.  That is what far right wacks pretending to be responsible conservative or libertarians do, like you: they babble.  Ronnie Reagan would have nothing to do with your kind.



I am glad you do not think I and most others who call themself a conservative are like you. That means we are doing the right thing.


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, T, you are a babbler. That is what far right wacks pretending to be responsible conservative or libertarians do, like you: they babble. Ronnie Reagan would have nothing to do with your kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad you do not think I and most others who call themself a conservative are like you. That means we are doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

 
Jokey/Fakey is NO Conservative by any stretch.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are not a conservative anymore than the T.  You are not libertarians.  You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms.  If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.

I am glad T gave up, because he had  nothing.  I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.


----------



## washamericom

The T said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to the thread topic, Ayn Rand.
> 
> Let's get back to her atheism, and here contempt for faith, for starters.
> 
> Is that the changing of the face of politics we're going to see after this stupid movie comes out?
> ...a rejection of faith as a meaningful component of American politics??
> 
> 
> 
> What contempt...and Faith? Since WHEN did *YOU* become an accolyte for faith since I have seen you do nothing but laugh at it?
Click to expand...


i don't know... this looks like pre judging to me... you've already decided it's...
also jake, you are too jaded to tell what a conservative could be (when you could be defining your side of the pile, perhaps another thread). 

now, you are asserting her contempt of faith (presumptuously), why couldn't she be an athiest. shouldn't any given philosophy or religion be treated with equal respect ? do *you* think that religion plays any role in politics?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You are not a conservative anymore than the T.  You are not libertarians.  You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms.  If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had  nothing.  I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.



And if you think  McCain, Scarborough, Romney, or Juan Williams  are Conservative's that will make you a complete moron in my book.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.


 
*I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this _patheitic?_


----------



## JakeStarkey

wash, you are losing the discussion.  NYC clearly and unequivocally demonstrated the phoniness of the Rand following.  Our Constitution protects all and no beliefs in deity.  Our Declaration of Independence clearly states our natural rights come from God.  So if you are turning your back on God, wash, I easily turn my back on your arguments.  Move along.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative anymore than the T.  You are not libertarians.  You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms.  If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had  nothing.  I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you think  McCain, Scarborough, Romney, or Juan Williams  are Conservative's that will make you a complete moron in my book.
Click to expand...


They are clearly not liberals, and your statement reveals clearly you are not a Conservative.  Step along.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this _patheitic?_
Click to expand...


  pathetic?  yes, T, you certainly are.  yes, you certainly gave up.


----------



## Big Fitz

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course anyone that agree's with a liberal is nothing but a liberal. You are a far left wacko futher than Longhner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian.  Don't ever think you understand the Constitution.  Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.
> 
> In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a liberal socialist.
Click to expand...

Just like the guy who shot Gabby Giffords.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Big Fitz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative, merely a far far wack silly libertarian.  Don't ever think you understand the Constitution.  Every true American on this Board repeatedly as exposed your silliness.
> 
> In fact, you have much in common with the shooter of Gabby Giffords, who despises your philosophies by the by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liberal socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like the guy who shot Gabby Giffords.
Click to expand...


Who shares the values of big fitz and his gang.  The shooter is not a liberal or socialist.  He is a weirdo, just like the far far right wack gang here.


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this _patheitic?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pathetic? yes, T, you certainly are. yes, you certainly gave up.
Click to expand...

 
*as far as you ascertain* I did...


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liberal socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the guy who shot Gabby Giffords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who shares the values of big fitz and his gang. The shooter is not a liberal or socialist. He is a weirdo, just like the far far right wack gang here.
Click to expand...

The guy was a LEFTIST...dumbass. And I say WAS because he's done. /Story.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative anymore than the T.  You are not libertarians.  You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms.  If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had  nothing.  I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you think  McCain, Scarborough, Romney, or Juan Williams  are Conservative's that will make you a complete moron in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are clearly not liberals, and your statement reveals clearly you are not a Conservative.  Step along.
Click to expand...


None of the above are Conservative and that includes you.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with Rand.  Ultimately she's forced to accept contradictions, or be rejected completely.
> 
> 
> 
> And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die.  Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people.  Or die.  that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.
> 
> The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person.  Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam.  At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest.  Most aren't.
> 
> So, your premise is flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I happen to agree with you. But the unanswered question still remains, what to do about it?  The only workable solution is to slowly wean those unproductive people OFF their support systems. And it won't happen overnight because there are too many unknowns: High unemployment, children who are unaware of the positions of their parent(s) who rely on life-sustaining programs, etc.
Click to expand...

First end duplication of effort.  Second, start cutting redirect funds into efforts to ween them off the dole, mostly by adding work requirements to even receive government money.  Then, slowly start cutting roles AND department size simultaneously.

The second part is the hard one.  Getting government to work towards it's own obsolesence.

In the same time, provide small tax breaks to people who volunteer or donate money to PRIVATE charities of any type that do not receive government funds to cover those who are really in need due to disability or other very specific circumstance till private organizations come about.

The problem with eliminating dolists is to make poverty survivable but uncomfortable.  Even benjamin Franklin pointed that out.  So here's one extreme way.  

You need housing?  Fine.  Don't expect an apartment.  Here's a dorm room at a government Dorm you will be sharing it with another person, bathroom's down the hall.  TV?  Sure.  Shared common room.  Meals prison cafeteria style, hope you like what they cook, seconds are available.  Manditory job training if you're not working.  If you are working, you pay some rent.  Children?  They'll be attending a school in the day, and have their own dorms.  Parents can visit them as needed.  No booze, no cigarettes, no drugs.  Internet is in the public room by appointment.

It's somewhat degrading, I agree.  Humiliating to live in such a circumstance, but That is the point.  They are fed, clothed, sheltered and offered a little bit of privacy, and they will get job training if needed, or put into a work program.  No lingering about during the day waiting for meals.  You want them motivated to leave it as soon as possible and getting their own life, home and ability to stand on their own.  

And like I said... this is one extreme example, that 150 years ago, actually would have been quite common in places like England after the poverty laws and Metropolitan Police force, and Peeler reforms kicked in.  A modern Dickensian aspect I guess and that could only be countered by tight regulation of the system... and even better still if you have it contracted out to private management companies that have performance based incentives to run a good facility.

Just thinking outside the box.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you think  McCain, Scarborough, Romney, or Juan Williams  are Conservative's that will make you a complete moron in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are clearly not liberals, and your statement reveals clearly you are not a Conservative.  Step along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the above are Conservative and that includes you.
Click to expand...


They are GOP conservatives, George Will is on their side, and their gang opposes you wacks far out their to the far far weird right.  You are not the party, you will never be the party, and you will never have the power.  Why?  Because the Wills, Scarboroughs, Williams, McCains etc will always oppose your weak loud mouth very small minority.


----------



## Big Fitz

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is refusal to defend defense of marriage and working with the soviets conservative positions.
> 
> Nah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Psychobabble*
Click to expand...

The correct term is "Libberish".


----------



## The T

Big Fitz said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is refusal to defend defense of marriage and working with the soviets conservative positions.
> 
> Nah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Psychobabble*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The correct term is "Libberish".
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Libberish" = those who to be thought of as conservative or libertarian, thus libberish.  Very good, guys.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> "Libberish" = those who to be thought of as conservative or libertarian, thus libberish.  Very good, guys.



Nope jake
But we have no way of communicating with them. They speak in a totally different language, known as "libberish". I have cracked the code and have provided a service in translating bits and pieces of their language so that someday, we'll be able to discuss and debate with them. Or maybe they'll just still call conservatives "Nazis". Who knows? But keep in mind, I'm trying to help break the language barrier here.

Liberal to English Dictionary


----------



## JakeStarkey

Why do you need a grenade launcher, bigreb?  Better put, why do you want one?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Why do you need a grenade launcher, bigreb?  Better put, why do you want one?



I have answered you already go to the thread The words "to bear arms" is a military term post 413 for your answer.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, the 2nd Amendment does not give you a civilian's right to a grenade launcher.

We have been through this.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> No, the 2nd Amendment does not give you a civilian's right to a grenade launcher.
> 
> We have been through this.



I'm not going to derail this thread because of your childish bullshit. The answer based with Judical facts was given in that thread. Go to that thread if you want to discuss it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, neither law nor Amendment nor Miller give you that right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this _patheitic?_
Click to expand...


I think he's a burned out crackhead.


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this _patheitic?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he's a burned out crackhead.
Click to expand...

 
My money is on that he's a PAID SHILL...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this _patheitic?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's a burned out crackhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My money is on that he's a PAID SHILL...
Click to expand...


He can be both doncha think?


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's a burned out crackhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My money is on that he's a PAID SHILL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can be both doncha think?
Click to expand...

 
yeah...but just watch to where his focus is...


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, neither law nor Amendment nor Miller give you that right.


 
Jake? Stop this charade.

Admit what and whom you are...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, neither law nor Amendment nor Miller give you that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake? Stop this charade.
> 
> Admit what and whom you are...
Click to expand...


T don't feed the troll he's tring to derail this thread by mentioning another thread. If he wants to discuss that thread let him do it on that thread.


----------



## washamericom

JakeStarkey said:


> Why do you need a grenade launcher, bigreb?  Better put, why do you want one?



jake, in the end, i will need _*and*_ want a grenade launcher, not to defend from an enemy abroad, rather, from people like you.

 i guess this thread has legs now... so let's call this the end of "part one"

i think that ayn rand would be delighted, that her work would elicit/evoke such enthusiastic thought and disscussion, some 53 years after it was published. i wonder what she'll think of the movie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

washamericom said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need a grenade launcher, bigreb?  Better put, why do you want one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jake, in the end, i will need _*and*_ want a grenade launcher, not for any enemy from abroad, but because of people like you.
> 
> i guess this thread has legs now... so let's call this the end of "part one"
> 
> i think that ayn rand would be delighted, that her work would evoke such enthusiastic disscussion, some 53 years after she wrote it.
Click to expand...

Don't blame me I have tried to redirect him to that thread.


----------



## The T

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, neither law nor Amendment nor Miller give you that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake? Stop this charade.
> 
> Admit what and whom you are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> T don't feed the troll he's tring to derail this thread by mentioning another thread. If he wants to discuss that thread let him do it on that thread.
Click to expand...

 
Understood. High time someone called his ass out.


----------



## washamericom

bigrebnc1775 said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need a grenade launcher, bigreb?  Better put, why do you want one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jake, in the end, i will need _*and*_ want a grenade launcher, not for any enemy from abroad, but because of people like you.
> 
> i guess this thread has legs now... so let's call this the end of "part one"
> 
> i think that ayn rand would be delighted, that her work would evoke such enthusiastic disscussion, some 53 years after she wrote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame me I have tried to redirect him to that thread.
Click to expand...


i think it's great, i have been so impressed with the quality of discussion, this i think is a reason why it will spill over into the political landscape, specifically the '12 election. she made quite a mark with her work, evident in it's volatility today. awesome.


----------



## Political Junky

I wonder if the christian right will accept that Ayn Rand was a lifelong atheist.


----------



## washamericom

Political Junky said:


> I wonder if the christian right will accept that Ayn Rand was a lifelong atheist.



what if they don't ?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Political Junky said:


> I wonder if the christian right will accept that Ayn Rand was a lifelong atheist.



Why does it matter? are you saying an atheist can't be a good Amrican?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The movie will have little impact, and you guys from the far far wack militia right will fail.  You did when you supported the British in the War of Independence, when you supported the South in the civil war, when you tried to stop civil rights.

You always fail.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> The movie will have little impact, and you guys from the far far wack militia right will fail.  You did when you supported the British in the War of Independence, when you supported the South in the civil war, when you tried to stop civil rights.
> 
> You always fail.



Troll anti america ^^^^^^^^^


----------



## JakeStarkey

You guys failed in the 1960s, you failed with the Klan and the Citizens Councils, and you will fail again because you hate American principles.  Your neighbors will put you down, bigreb, if you and your fellow clowns rise up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You guys failed in the 1960s, you failed with the Klan and the Citizens Councils, and you will fail again because you hate American principles.  Your neighbors will put you down, bigreb, if you and your fellow clowns rise up.



Another failed attempt to use race in an failed jokey argument.


----------



## Political Junky

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the christian right will accept that Ayn Rand was a lifelong atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter? are you saying an atheist can't be a good Amrican?
Click to expand...

Many right wing christians would say that. I didn't.


----------



## Big Fitz

Political Junky said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the christian right will accept that Ayn Rand was a lifelong atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter? are you saying an atheist can't be a good Amrican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many right wing christians would say that. I didn't.
Click to expand...

Rand's Atheism isn't my problem... it's hers, between her and God.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Political Junky said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the christian right will accept that Ayn Rand was a lifelong atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter? are you saying an atheist can't be a good Amrican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many right wing christians would say that. I didn't.
Click to expand...


So you speak for christians now?


----------



## washamericom

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter? are you saying an atheist can't be a good Amrican?
> 
> 
> 
> Many right wing christians would say that. I didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you speak for christians now?
Click to expand...


this is an interesting twist i hadn't really considered. perhaps the title should have been "will atlas shrugged change the face of american religion/"  allright, take it easy.
after this thread, i am convinced that my original premise is viable.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter? are you saying an atheist can't be a good Amrican?
> 
> 
> 
> Many right wing christians would say that. I didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you speak for christians now?
Click to expand...


It's well known that many rightwing christians assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is dead on your statement not so much
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.
Click to expand...


For a guy who spends a good deal of his time here defending the 2nd AMENDMENT, it's odd you would also argue that the Constitution can't be amended.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is dead on your statement not so much
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a guy who spends a good deal of his time here defending the 2nd AMENDMENT, it's odd you would also argue that the Constitution can't be amended.
Click to expand...


When did I say it can't be amended? I did ask how many times it has been amended in the past 80 years. Meaning it's hard to do because of the constitutional restraints. So are you going to answer the question?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many right wing christians would say that. I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you speak for christians now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's well known that many rightwing christians assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation.
Click to expand...


And what does that have to do with Ayn Rand? Christians aren't as judgemental as you think, at least those people who truely are Christians.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has it been amended in the past 80 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My question is dead on your statement not so much
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.
Click to expand...


You mean the *First* Amendment granting free speech is just bullshit?


----------



## MaggieMae

JakeStarkey said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jokey Fakey? You remain the largest JOKE on these boards.
> this is true... where _*has*_ dante been ?
> 
> ratified by three quarters of the states, including the ones that think they can secede from the union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, which djepend on democratic votes.  You are a joke right along with T and bigreb.  You guys always, I mean always, walk into the wall.
Click to expand...


These people who don't know how the Constitution gets amended are the same ones who pretend to have *read* Atlas Shrugged. Uh huh...


----------



## MaggieMae

The T said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, T, you are a babbler. That is what far right wacks pretending to be responsible conservative or libertarians do, like you: they babble. Ronnie Reagan would have nothing to do with your kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad you do not think I and most others who call themself a conservative are like you. That means we are doing the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jokey/Fakey is NO Conservative by any stretch.
Click to expand...


You extremists need to come up with a different definition of yourselves. How about just Rebels? Because you're not conservatives. You think only of yourselves and what can be gained for yourselves. You first, country last. And yes, Ronald Reagan would not approve.


----------



## MaggieMae

JakeStarkey said:


> You are not a conservative anymore than the T.  You are not libertarians.  You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms.  If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had  nothing.  I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.



Even true Libertarians aren't that whacko. Libertarians don't call for the elimination of anyone left of center or all social policies to be accomplished by armed force if necessary.


----------



## MaggieMae

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this _patheitic?_
Click to expand...


Excuse me, but there are over 400 posts in this thread, and I see very few distancing themselves from Jake, nor anyone else who presents a credible argument against the theories of Ayn Rand.


----------



## MaggieMae

The T said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the guy who shot Gabby Giffords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who shares the values of big fitz and his gang. The shooter is not a liberal or socialist. He is a weirdo, just like the far far right wack gang here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The guy was a LEFTIST...dumbass. And I say WAS because he's done. /Story.
Click to expand...


He visited conspiracy theory sites and believed in a New World Order coming to town, a conspiracy theory that's been around for decades, but recently revised and piqued the interest of unread idiots when Democrats gained control and especially since Obama became president. How is that "leftist"????


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die.  Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people.  Or die.  that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.
> 
> The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person.  Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam.  At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest.  Most aren't.
> 
> So, your premise is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to agree with you. But the unanswered question still remains, what to do about it?  The only workable solution is to slowly wean those unproductive people OFF their support systems. And it won't happen overnight because there are too many unknowns: High unemployment, children who are unaware of the positions of their parent(s) who rely on life-sustaining programs, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First end duplication of effort.  Second, start cutting redirect funds into efforts to ween them off the dole, mostly by adding work requirements to even receive government money.  Then, slowly start cutting roles AND department size simultaneously.
> 
> The second part is the hard one.  Getting government to work towards it's own obsolesence.
> 
> In the same time, provide small tax breaks to people who volunteer or donate money to PRIVATE charities of any type that do not receive government funds to cover those who are really in need due to disability or other very specific circumstance till private organizations come about.
> 
> The problem with eliminating dolists is to make poverty survivable but uncomfortable.  Even benjamin Franklin pointed that out.  So here's one extreme way.
> 
> You need housing?  Fine.  Don't expect an apartment.  Here's a dorm room at a government Dorm you will be sharing it with another person, bathroom's down the hall.  TV?  Sure.  Shared common room.  Meals prison cafeteria style, hope you like what they cook, seconds are available.  Manditory job training if you're not working.  If you are working, you pay some rent.  Children?  They'll be attending a school in the day, and have their own dorms.  Parents can visit them as needed.  No booze, no cigarettes, no drugs.  Internet is in the public room by appointment.
> 
> It's somewhat degrading, I agree.  Humiliating to live in such a circumstance, but That is the point.  They are fed, clothed, sheltered and offered a little bit of privacy, and they will get job training if needed, or put into a work program.  No lingering about during the day waiting for meals.  You want them motivated to leave it as soon as possible and getting their own life, home and ability to stand on their own.
> 
> And like I said... this is one extreme example, that 150 years ago, actually would have been quite common in places like England after the poverty laws and Metropolitan Police force, and Peeler reforms kicked in.  A modern Dickensian aspect I guess and that could only be countered by tight regulation of the system... and even better still if you have it contracted out to private management companies that have performance based incentives to run a good facility.
> 
> Just thinking outside the box.
Click to expand...


I actually agree with some of your input. I just wish you would stop aligning yourself with the loons. I might actually get to like you on an intellectual level.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is dead on your statement not so much
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the *First* Amendment granting free speech is just bullshit?
Click to expand...


The original question since you want to take what I said out of context is,
How many amendment have we had in the last 80 years?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who shares the values of big fitz and his gang. The shooter is not a liberal or socialist. He is a weirdo, just like the far far right wack gang here.
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was a LEFTIST...dumbass. And I say WAS because he's done. /Story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He visited conspiracy theory sites and believed in a New World Order coming to town, a conspiracy theory that's been around for decades, but recently revised and piqued the interest of unread idiots when Democrats gained control and especially since Obama became president. How is that "leftist"????
Click to expand...


The New World Order is not a conspiracy Bush SR. has mentioned it a few times. The U.N. will be the means that will make it happen. The concept will be played like this to stop war the world must be unified and have one world law, with one leadership head. Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?


----------



## 8537

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?



really?  They're sure doing a poor job of it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is dead on your statement not so much
> 
> 
> A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the *First* Amendment granting free speech is just bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original question since you want to take what I said out of context is,
> How many amendment have we had in the last 80 years?
Click to expand...


None.  How does that prove that the United States is not a representative democracy, which, in case anyone missed it or forgot it,

is the point of this conversation.

bigreb claims that the US is not a representative democracy.  He is clearly wrong, but, in the grand tradition of modern conservatism, is too obstinate and brainwashed to admit it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you speak for christians now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's well known that many rightwing christians assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with Ayn Rand? Christians aren't as judgemental as you think, at least those people who truely are Christians.
Click to expand...


What about Conservative Christians who want to amend the Constitution to effectively ban all abortion?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a conservative anymore than the T. You are not libertarians. You are far right wing loons who hide behind those terms. If you think McCain, Scarborough, Romney, Juan Williams, etc., are liberals, then you are clearly loony.
> 
> I am glad T gave up, because he had nothing. I am glad you gave up on the heavy military grade weapons argument finally, other than why you think you are entitled to a grenade launcher is rather loony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this _patheitic?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but there are over 400 posts in this thread, and I see very few distancing themselves from Jake, nor anyone else who presents a credible argument against the theories of Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for them to present something credible, care to make a suggestion?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

8537 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really?  They're sure doing a poor job of it.
Click to expand...


What happens when the government prints more money than it's GDP is worth?


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to agree with you. But the unanswered question still remains, what to do about it?  The only workable solution is to slowly wean those unproductive people OFF their support systems. And it won't happen overnight because there are too many unknowns: High unemployment, children who are unaware of the positions of their parent(s) who rely on life-sustaining programs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> First end duplication of effort.  Second, start cutting redirect funds into efforts to ween them off the dole, mostly by adding work requirements to even receive government money.  Then, slowly start cutting roles AND department size simultaneously.
> 
> The second part is the hard one.  Getting government to work towards it's own obsolesence.
> 
> In the same time, provide small tax breaks to people who volunteer or donate money to PRIVATE charities of any type that do not receive government funds to cover those who are really in need due to disability or other very specific circumstance till private organizations come about.
> 
> The problem with eliminating dolists is to make poverty survivable but uncomfortable.  Even benjamin Franklin pointed that out.  So here's one extreme way.
> 
> You need housing?  Fine.  Don't expect an apartment.  Here's a dorm room at a government Dorm you will be sharing it with another person, bathroom's down the hall.  TV?  Sure.  Shared common room.  Meals prison cafeteria style, hope you like what they cook, seconds are available.  Manditory job training if you're not working.  If you are working, you pay some rent.  Children?  They'll be attending a school in the day, and have their own dorms.  Parents can visit them as needed.  No booze, no cigarettes, no drugs.  Internet is in the public room by appointment.
> 
> It's somewhat degrading, I agree.  Humiliating to live in such a circumstance, but That is the point.  They are fed, clothed, sheltered and offered a little bit of privacy, and they will get job training if needed, or put into a work program.  No lingering about during the day waiting for meals.  You want them motivated to leave it as soon as possible and getting their own life, home and ability to stand on their own.
> 
> And like I said... this is one extreme example, that 150 years ago, actually would have been quite common in places like England after the poverty laws and Metropolitan Police force, and Peeler reforms kicked in.  A modern Dickensian aspect I guess and that could only be countered by tight regulation of the system... and even better still if you have it contracted out to private management companies that have performance based incentives to run a good facility.
> 
> Just thinking outside the box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually agree with some of your input. I just wish you would stop aligning yourself with the loons. I might actually get to like you on an intellectual level.
Click to expand...

LOL... thanks I think?  But sorry, I still remain staunchly anti-collectivism, pro-individual, pro-personal responsibility, pro-small government, pro-privatization and a constitutional originalist.

I'm surprised we agree on this issue for the most part.


----------



## Kalam

Apparently the film is being released in multiple installments. I hope that one movie will be dedicated entirely to the 70-page John Galt speech so the film series can be just as pontifical and prolix as the novel.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Libberish" = those who to be thought of as conservative or libertarian, thus libberish.  Very good, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope jake
> But we have no way of communicating with them. They speak in a totally different language, known as "libberish". I have cracked the code and have provided a service in translating bits and pieces of their language so that someday, we'll be able to discuss and debate with them. Or maybe they'll just still call conservatives "Nazis". Who knows? But keep in mind, I'm trying to help break the language barrier here.
> 
> Liberal to English Dictionary
Click to expand...


I find Conservaspeak on Message Boards as generally not actually addressing the issue at all. Rather ~~

-- "Oh no, I'm not a Republican! I'm an Independent" (libertarian, crossover voter, conservative etc.) Surest sign of a typical Republican too ashamed to admit party affiliation. 

-- Sock puppets so the poster can friend him/herself or send two or more responses to their own posts.

-- "You're making ad hominem attacks!!"  But it's okay if I do.

--  Emphasis on social value concepts (aka wedge issues) at the expense of serious matters or to deflect attention when the real debate is lost.

--  Even worse, glomming on to some verbal faux pas as if it dramatically changed the crux of the issue.

If I really thought about it, I could fill several pages.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is rhetorical, and irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> If you wish to dispute that the Constitution can be amended by a super majority, thus proving that ultimately, the majority rules in this country, then do so.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is dead on your statement not so much
> 
> 
> 
> How many do we need to have had to prove that the Constitution can be amended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the *First* Amendment granting free speech is just bullshit?
Click to expand...

Actually, the first amendment does not grant free speech.  It PROTECTS our God Given Right to free speech.  Of course there are some basic limits to it as well.

You can't spread falsehoods about (Libel and Slander are not protected)
You can't threaten public safety (Shouting fire in a crowded theater if none exists)

I keep thinking there is a third limitation, but I can never remember it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ayn Rand's view of Ronald Reagan:

*In 1976, as Burns reports, she urged readers to oppose his campaign for president. "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan," she wrote, calling him a conservative in "the worst sense of the word," because he backed a mixed economy and opposed abortion rights.*

hmmm...

Ed Kilgore for Democracy Journal: In Galt They Trust


----------



## Big Fitz

Kalam said:


> Apparently the film is being released in multiple installments. I hope that one movie will be dedicated entirely to the 70-page John Galt speech so the film series can be just as pontifical and prolix as the novel.


Tell me, do you feel the same way about the following works:

Fahrenheit 451
Brave New World
1984
A Handmaid's Tale
Soylant Green
Planet of the Apes
A Clockwork Orange
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
War of the Worlds
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Logan's Run
Metropolis
Demolition Man
The Dark Knight
Blade Runner
Avatar
The Day After Tomorrow
Minority Report

IIRC there are film versions of all these works.  All of them have a basic political agenda behind them in various forms of camouflage.

If you haven't seen these films, you should find them.  Some are very good (Blade Runner, Demolition Man, The Dark Knight), others are pretty lousy (A Handmaid's Tale, The Day After Tomorrow, Soylant Green), but all are interesting in how they express political philosophy and illustrate it in science fiction for mass consumption.  Shit, why, for instance is money never part of Star Trek?  Why is everyone working?  Has culture hit some eudamonic phase of life?  Hard to believe really and part of why I have a hard time enjoying the universe very much.

BTW, I view Atlas Shrugged as a Science Fiction work because of some small aspects of the technological devices in it, the time isn't defined well, plus the style of writing was reminiscent of classical science fiction in many ways.


----------



## washamericom

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many right wing christians would say that. I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you speak for christians now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's well known that many rightwing christians assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation.
Click to expand...


the u.s. _*is *_a christian nation... it's like ninety something percent.
i was waiting for someone to mention "new world order". not the rule of the jungle.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is dead on your statement not so much
> 
> 
> A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the *First* Amendment granting free speech is just bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original question since you want to take what I said out of context is,
> How many amendment have we had in the last 80 years?
Click to expand...


You didn't write that? Every "amendment" can be seen, all 27 of them, and are applied as a matter of law. Maybe you should have said "A *PROPOSED* Constitutional Amendment is just like a wind..." Although that's hardly true either. The next amendment, if and when it happens, will cover several ambiguous clauses found in the original Constitution and will be done for clarity. But the debate will be enormous, hardly invisible.


----------



## NYcarbineer

washamericom said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you speak for christians now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's well known that many rightwing christians assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the u.s. _*is *_a christian nation... it's like ninety something percent.
> i was waiting for someone to mention "new world order". not the rule of the jungle.
Click to expand...


Ayn Rand believed in the law of the jungle being supreme.

btw, % of Christians is not what those people mean when they call this a Christian nation.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was a LEFTIST...dumbass. And I say WAS because he's done. /Story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He visited conspiracy theory sites and believed in a New World Order coming to town, a conspiracy theory that's been around for decades, but recently revised and piqued the interest of unread idiots when Democrats gained control and especially since Obama became president. How is that "leftist"????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New World Order is not a conspiracy Bush SR. has mentioned it a few times. The U.N. will be the means that will make it happen. The concept will be played like this to stop war the world must be unified and have one world law, with one leadership head. Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?
Click to expand...


The "New World Order" as envisioned by the current batch of loons can be found in Glenn Beck's bullshit. A Caliphate is a comin' soon to America (AND THE WORLD!!!), supported by the monied interests of George Soros and evil Communists posing as Washington liberal elites in partnership with the nasty physical destruction capabilities of Islamic terror organizations. A secret NWO is being established as we speak.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the *First* Amendment granting free speech is just bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original question since you want to take what I said out of context is,
> How many amendment have we had in the last 80 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None.  How does that prove that the United States is not a representative democracy, which, in case anyone missed it or forgot it,
> 
> is the point of this conversation.
> 
> bigreb claims that the US is not a representative democracy.  He is clearly wrong, but, in the grand tradition of modern conservatism, is too obstinate and brainwashed to admit it.
Click to expand...




> None.



And you would be wrong
we have had 7
Even though some amendments were Ratified within two too three years time some like the 17th was still being voted on up to Delaware Jun 25, 2010 
proposed on May 13, 1912.
Ratified Connecticut Apr 8, 1913

 The 27th Amendment, which restricts raises in congressional pay, was proposed on September 25, 1789.

Ratified New Jersey May 7, 1992 

Some states did not vote on some amendments some flat out rejected them.
Ratification of Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The moral of the story is, it's hard to radify an amendment than it is for a drunk to go to church on sunday morning.


----------



## washamericom

one reason not that many people distance themselves from jake the flake, is they think he know's, but he really doesn't have a working knowledge of the subject (much like our president). you can't just stand on the shoulder's of those who have done the work (jurrasic park).





 Quote: Originally Posted by choice
it's so great that people like fitz and boedicca and political chic now rule the  USMB


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> He visited conspiracy theory sites and believed in a New World Order coming to town, a conspiracy theory that's been around for decades, but recently revised and piqued the interest of unread idiots when Democrats gained control and especially since Obama became president. How is that "leftist"????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New World Order is not a conspiracy Bush SR. has mentioned it a few times. The U.N. will be the means that will make it happen. The concept will be played like this to stop war the world must be unified and have one world law, with one leadership head. Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "New World Order" as envisioned by the current batch of loons can be found in Glenn Beck's bullshit. A Caliphate is a comin' soon to America (AND THE WORLD!!!), supported by the monied interests of George Soros and evil Communists posing as Washington liberal elites in partnership with the nasty physical destruction capabilities of Islamic terror organizations. A secret NWO is being established as we speak.
Click to expand...


Which came first George Bush SR or Glenn Beck?


----------



## MaggieMae

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's well known that many rightwing christians assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with Ayn Rand? Christians aren't as judgemental as you think, at least those people who truely are Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Conservative Christians who want to amend the Constitution to effectively ban all abortion?
Click to expand...


Or Christians who want to destroy all liberals, either by force or by starving the beast? As for banning all abortions, as soon as some hardline pro-life person comes up with a plan for taking care of unwanted children after they're born, a heavy additional cost to those same taxpayers who revolt over providing welfare, then I'll start paying more attention to that issue.


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> He visited conspiracy theory sites and believed in a New World Order coming to town, a conspiracy theory that's been around for decades, but recently revised and piqued the interest of unread idiots when Democrats gained control and especially since Obama became president. How is that "leftist"????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New World Order is not a conspiracy Bush SR. has mentioned it a few times. The U.N. will be the means that will make it happen. The concept will be played like this to stop war the world must be unified and have one world law, with one leadership head. Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "New World Order" as envisioned by the current batch of loons can be found in Glenn Beck's bullshit. A Caliphate is a comin' soon to America (AND THE WORLD!!!), supported by the monied interests of George Soros and evil Communists posing as Washington liberal elites in partnership with the nasty physical destruction capabilities of Islamic terror organizations. A secret NWO is being established as we speak.
Click to expand...


in a basement in new haven ct.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I* Gave up nothing. Do you enjoy being a horse's ASS Jokey? or do you do this because you have such a lonely existance that this is the ONLY WAY people will talk to you? ARE YOU this _patheitic?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but there are over 400 posts in this thread, and I see very few distancing themselves from Jake, nor anyone else who presents a credible argument against the theories of Ayn Rand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for them to present something credible, care to make a suggestion?
Click to expand...


You seem to have an inordinate amount of time to spend on a message board, so why don't you go back through them all and see for yourself? Obviously, you didn't bother to read anything I said previously, so I'm not about to go searching for you. It could be, like any good con, you ignore any thoughtful conversation because you're far more interested in liberal bashing which must give you some sense of faux power.


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> First end duplication of effort.  Second, start cutting redirect funds into efforts to ween them off the dole, mostly by adding work requirements to even receive government money.  Then, slowly start cutting roles AND department size simultaneously.
> 
> The second part is the hard one.  Getting government to work towards it's own obsolesence.
> 
> In the same time, provide small tax breaks to people who volunteer or donate money to PRIVATE charities of any type that do not receive government funds to cover those who are really in need due to disability or other very specific circumstance till private organizations come about.
> 
> The problem with eliminating dolists is to make poverty survivable but uncomfortable.  Even benjamin Franklin pointed that out.  So here's one extreme way.
> 
> You need housing?  Fine.  Don't expect an apartment.  Here's a dorm room at a government Dorm you will be sharing it with another person, bathroom's down the hall.  TV?  Sure.  Shared common room.  Meals prison cafeteria style, hope you like what they cook, seconds are available.  Manditory job training if you're not working.  If you are working, you pay some rent.  Children?  They'll be attending a school in the day, and have their own dorms.  Parents can visit them as needed.  No booze, no cigarettes, no drugs.  Internet is in the public room by appointment.
> 
> It's somewhat degrading, I agree.  Humiliating to live in such a circumstance, but That is the point.  They are fed, clothed, sheltered and offered a little bit of privacy, and they will get job training if needed, or put into a work program.  No lingering about during the day waiting for meals.  You want them motivated to leave it as soon as possible and getting their own life, home and ability to stand on their own.
> 
> And like I said... this is one extreme example, that 150 years ago, actually would have been quite common in places like England after the poverty laws and Metropolitan Police force, and Peeler reforms kicked in.  A modern Dickensian aspect I guess and that could only be countered by tight regulation of the system... and even better still if you have it contracted out to private management companies that have performance based incentives to run a good facility.
> 
> Just thinking outside the box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually agree with some of your input. I just wish you would stop aligning yourself with the loons. I might actually get to like you on an intellectual level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL... thanks I think?  But sorry, I still remain staunchly anti-collectivism, pro-individual, pro-personal responsibility, pro-small government, pro-privatization and a constitutional originalist.
> 
> I'm surprised we agree on this issue for the most part.
Click to expand...


You shouldn't be surprised. I agree in principle on all of that, but we (along with others who actually can THINK) simply disagree on how to get there from here.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the *First* Amendment granting free speech is just bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original question since you want to take what I said out of context is,
> How many amendment have we had in the last 80 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't write that? Every "amendment" can be seen, all 27 of them, and are applied as a matter of law. Maybe you should have said "A *PROPOSED* Constitutional Amendment is just like a wind..." Although that's hardly true either. The next amendment, if and when it happens, will cover several ambiguous clauses found in the original Constitution and will be done for clarity. But the debate will be enormous, hardly invisible.
Click to expand...


the pharse like the wind you can't see it but you know it's there is a metaphor, you do know what a metapher is don't you? Sure you can view every Amendment there is, but that does not mean it's an easy process to ratify one.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but there are over 400 posts in this thread, and I see very few distancing themselves from Jake, nor anyone else who presents a credible argument against the theories of Ayn Rand.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for them to present something credible, care to make a suggestion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have an inordinate amount of time to spend on a message board, so why don't you go back through them all and see for yourself? Obviously, you didn't bother to read anything I said previously, so I'm not about to go searching for you. It could be, like any good con, you ignore any thoughtful conversation because you're far more interested in liberal bashing which must give you some sense of faux power.
Click to expand...


No I don't have the time but you made the statement. Waiting on some suggestions.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> Ayn Rand's view of Ronald Reagan:
> 
> *In 1976, as Burns reports, she urged readers to oppose his campaign for president. "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan," she wrote, calling him a conservative in "the worst sense of the word," because he backed a mixed economy and opposed abortion rights.*
> 
> hmmm...
> 
> Ed Kilgore for Democracy Journal: In Galt They Trust



*From the about part in your link*

The mission of Democracy is to build a vibrant and vital progressivism for the twenty-first century that builds on the movements proud history, is true to its central values, and is relevant to present times.

Democracy and progressivism two words that stand out. I call your source a load of bullshit.


----------



## MaggieMae

Invasion of the Body Snatchers had a political message in it? I haven't seen the newer version, but I've seen the original several times, and I don't recall any. I thought they were just the victims of an alien invasion. 

[Currently, I'm trying to follow "The Event," which had somewhat of a political message to it last season, but there's been a plot twist this year, so I don't think it's going there. Looks like those "aliens" might not be aliens at all, but the people who once inhabited earth and were shipped to outer space for some reason years ago.]

I love science fiction, if it has a credible plot, and I'm not usually looking for a _political_ message in any of it.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> He visited conspiracy theory sites and believed in a New World Order coming to town, a conspiracy theory that's been around for decades, but recently revised and piqued the interest of unread idiots when Democrats gained control and especially since Obama became president. How is that "leftist"????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New World Order is not a conspiracy Bush SR. has mentioned it a few times. The U.N. will be the means that will make it happen. The concept will be played like this to stop war the world must be unified and have one world law, with one leadership head. Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "New World Order" as envisioned by the current batch of loons can be found in Glenn Beck's bullshit. A Caliphate is a comin' soon to America (AND THE WORLD!!!), supported by the monied interests of George Soros and evil Communists posing as Washington liberal elites in partnership with the nasty physical destruction capabilities of Islamic terror organizations. A secret NWO is being established as we speak.
Click to expand...

What's the one issue liberals and radical muslims agree on?

Hatred for the Jew and the west.  Strange bedfellows indeed.


----------



## Big Fitz

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's view of Ronald Reagan:
> 
> *In 1976, as Burns reports, she urged readers to oppose his campaign for president. "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan," she wrote, calling him a conservative in "the worst sense of the word," because he backed a mixed economy and opposed abortion rights.*
> 
> hmmm...
> 
> Ed Kilgore for Democracy Journal: In Galt They Trust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From the about part in your link*
> 
> The mission of Democracy is to build a vibrant and vital progressivism for the twenty-first century that builds on the movements proud history, is true to its central values, and is relevant to present times.
> 
> Democracy and progressivism two words that stand out. I call your source a load of bullshit.
Click to expand...

preeeetty much.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> one reason not that many people distance themselves from jake the flake, is they think he know's, but he really doesn't have a working knowledge of the subject (much like our president). you can't just stand on the shoulder's of those who have done the work (jurrasic park).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by choice
> it's so great that people like fitz and boedicca and political chic now rule the  USMB



So using a quote from Jurrasic Park is supposed to make you look smart?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> Invasion of the Body Snatchers had a political message in it? I haven't seen the newer version, but I've seen the original several times, and I don't recall any. I thought they were just the victims of an alien invasion.
> 
> [Currently, I'm trying to follow "The Event," which had somewhat of a political message to it last season, but there's been a plot twist this year, so I don't think it's going there. Looks like those "aliens" might not be aliens at all, but the people who once inhabited earth and were shipped to outer space for some reason years ago.]
> 
> I love science fiction, if it has a credible plot, and I'm not usually looking for a _political_ message in any of it.



Which way does you political compass point?


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New World Order is not a conspiracy Bush SR. has mentioned it a few times. The U.N. will be the means that will make it happen. The concept will be played like this to stop war the world must be unified and have one world law, with one leadership head. Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "New World Order" as envisioned by the current batch of loons can be found in Glenn Beck's bullshit. A Caliphate is a comin' soon to America (AND THE WORLD!!!), supported by the monied interests of George Soros and evil Communists posing as Washington liberal elites in partnership with the nasty physical destruction capabilities of Islamic terror organizations. A secret NWO is being established as we speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which came first George Bush SR or Glenn Beck?
Click to expand...


I really do get tired of trying to explain things that should be obvious. Bush41's vision of a New World Order had to do with global peace and cooperation. Beck's vision is one of destruction by evil people and acceptance by ignorant masses.

Here's the text of Bush's speech, with the excerpt describing what he meant. Of course you could have looked that up yourself before making a fool of yourself. Again.

War On Americans? | 'Toward a New World Order' A transcript of the speech by George Herbert Walker Bush September 11, 1990


> We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for them to present something credible, care to make a suggestion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have an inordinate amount of time to spend on a message board, so why don't you go back through them all and see for yourself? Obviously, you didn't bother to read anything I said previously, so I'm not about to go searching for you. It could be, like any good con, you ignore any thoughtful conversation because you're far more interested in liberal bashing which must give you some sense of faux power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't have the time but you made the statement. Waiting on some suggestions.
Click to expand...


Too bad. I'm not going to repeat myself.


----------



## editec

MaggieMae said:


> Invasion of the Body Snatchers had a political message in it? I haven't seen the newer version, but I've seen the original several times, and I don't recall any. I thought they were just the victims of an alien invasion.
> 
> [Currently, I'm trying to follow "The Event," which had somewhat of a political message to it last season, but there's been a plot twist this year, so I don't think it's going there. Looks like those "aliens" might not be aliens at all, but the people who once inhabited earth and were shipped to outer space for some reason years ago.]
> 
> I love science fiction, if it has a credible plot, and I'm not usually looking for a _political_ message in any of it.


 
Invasion of the Body snatchers (both versions) can be construed as a political metaphor.

The original could be construed as a commentary on US fears that crypto-communists were taking over society.

The 1970's version I personally construed as a metaphor about YUPPIES taking over society. (and it all came true, too, much to this nation's shame) 

I've actually seen that picture at least ten times,  since, in the late 70s I used to drink in a bar that showed it a couple times a day for about a week.

Insinuating social commentary metphors is rather common in literature and film.

For example, _Animal Farm_ isn't entirely just about farm animals.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "New World Order" as envisioned by the current batch of loons can be found in Glenn Beck's bullshit. A Caliphate is a comin' soon to America (AND THE WORLD!!!), supported by the monied interests of George Soros and evil Communists posing as Washington liberal elites in partnership with the nasty physical destruction capabilities of Islamic terror organizations. A secret NWO is being established as we speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which came first George Bush SR or Glenn Beck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really do get tired of trying to explain things that should be obvious. Bush41's vision of a New World Order had to do with global peace and cooperation. Beck's vision is one of destruction by evil people and acceptance by ignorant masses.
> 
> Here's the text of Bush's speech, with the excerpt describing what he meant. Of course you could have looked that up yourself before making a fool of yourself. Again.
> 
> War On Americans? | 'Toward a New World Order' A transcript of the speech by George Herbert Walker Bush September 11, 1990
> 
> 
> 
> We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




> Bush41's vision of a New World Order had to do with global peace and cooperation.



I think I covered that part in my earlier reply how did you miss it?


> The concept will be played like this to stop war the world must be unified and have one world law, with one leadership head.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's view of Ronald Reagan:
> 
> *In 1976, as Burns reports, she urged readers to oppose his campaign for president. "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan," she wrote, calling him a conservative in "the worst sense of the word," because he backed a mixed economy and opposed abortion rights.*
> 
> hmmm...
> 
> Ed Kilgore for Democracy Journal: In Galt They Trust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From the about part in your link*
> 
> The mission of Democracy is to build a vibrant and vital progressivism for the twenty-first century that builds on the movements proud history, is true to its central values, and is relevant to present times.
> 
> Democracy and progressivism two words that stand out. I call your source a load of bullshit.
Click to expand...


Something wrong with your Google finger? It's an accurate quote, inserted many times in many articles. Here's one from a right-wing blogger, who expands Rand's distaste not only for Reagan but Greenspan and Bush41.

AriArmstrong.com: Reading Anne Heller on Ayn Rand


> What about Reagan, who defined the politics of the 1980s? Rand wrote, "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan." Of course Reagan did nominate Greenspan, Rand's "disciple," to the Fed, an institution which Rand opposed. George H. W. Bush, who rounded out the '80s, was an even worse disaster by Rand's standards.


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> one reason not that many people distance themselves from jake the flake, is they think he know's, but he really doesn't have a working knowledge of the subject (much like our president). you can't just stand on the shoulder's of those who have done the work (jurrasic park).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by choice
> it's so great that people like fitz and boedicca and political chic now rule the  USMB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So using a quote from Jurrasic Park is supposed to make you look smart?
Click to expand...


yes, it was on last night. what would be an "ordinate" amount of time to spend here ?, cause if there are rules about that i'll get right in line behind you and starkey and nyc, i want to be fair practiced with the cyberspace


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New World Order is not a conspiracy Bush SR. has mentioned it a few times. The U.N. will be the means that will make it happen. The concept will be played like this to stop war the world must be unified and have one world law, with one leadership head. Why do you think the U.S. government is tring to destory the dollar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "New World Order" as envisioned by the current batch of loons can be found in Glenn Beck's bullshit. A Caliphate is a comin' soon to America (AND THE WORLD!!!), supported by the monied interests of George Soros and evil Communists posing as Washington liberal elites in partnership with the nasty physical destruction capabilities of Islamic terror organizations. A secret NWO is being established as we speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the one issue liberals and radical muslims agree on?
> 
> Hatred for the Jew and the west.  Strange bedfellows indeed.
Click to expand...


I don't hate Jews and I hardly hate the west? WTF? Wow your brain kicked in, now it's gone again. Sad.


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invasion of the Body Snatchers had a political message in it? I haven't seen the newer version, but I've seen the original several times, and I don't recall any. I thought they were just the victims of an alien invasion.
> 
> [Currently, I'm trying to follow "The Event," which had somewhat of a political message to it last season, but there's been a plot twist this year, so I don't think it's going there. Looks like those "aliens" might not be aliens at all, but the people who once inhabited earth and were shipped to outer space for some reason years ago.]
> 
> I love science fiction, if it has a credible plot, and I'm not usually looking for a _political_ message in any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which way does you political compass point?
Click to expand...


Right down the center, but it depends on what the most important problem is at the time. I could become a neocon real easy if there were some *legitimate* threat to the survival of America, but I think the nation has concentrated far too long on the problems of foreign countries and not nearly enough on our own domestic issues. It's why both the "welfare state" and the "corporate state" has gotten out of hand. Lawmakers haven't been paying enough attention, and now the problems within the system are enormous. When the Democrats try to fix things, they just get shouted down as big spenders, but in my opinion, just like in private businesses, it takes retooling and reinvestment in order to get the product to operate correctly in a different buyer's market. Everyone wants to be richer, but what's the point of owning a $100K automobile when the highways are all broken and potholed? What's the point of owning a starter castle with the latest plumbing installed in three bathrooms when the sewers beneath are crumbling because they haven't been replaced in 100 years? Get my gist?


----------



## MaggieMae

editec said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invasion of the Body Snatchers had a political message in it? I haven't seen the newer version, but I've seen the original several times, and I don't recall any. I thought they were just the victims of an alien invasion.
> 
> [Currently, I'm trying to follow "The Event," which had somewhat of a political message to it last season, but there's been a plot twist this year, so I don't think it's going there. Looks like those "aliens" might not be aliens at all, but the people who once inhabited earth and were shipped to outer space for some reason years ago.]
> 
> I love science fiction, if it has a credible plot, and I'm not usually looking for a _political_ message in any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invasion of the Body snatchers (both versions) can be construed as a political metaphor.
> 
> The original could be construed as a commentary on US fears that crypto-communists were taking over society.
> 
> The 1970's version I personally construed as a metaphor about YUPPIES taking over society. (and it all came true, too, much to this nation's shame)
> 
> I've actually seen that picture at least ten times,  since, in the late 70s I used to drink in a bar that showed it a couple times a day for about a week.
> 
> Insinuating social commentary metphors is rather common in literature and film.
> 
> For example, _Animal Farm_ isn't entirely just about farm animals.
Click to expand...


I guess I'll have to see it again. However, why should social commentary related to the time be omitted? If it is, it then becomes just fantasy.

Animal Farm was obviously political.


----------



## washamericom

NYcarbineer said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's well known that many rightwing christians assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the u.s. _*is *_a christian nation... it's like ninety something percent.
> i was waiting for someone to mention "new world order". not the rule of the jungle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand believed in the law of the jungle being supreme.
> 
> btw, % of Christians is not what those people mean when they call this a Christian nation.
Click to expand...


here's an "objective" (yes it's a wordplay) piece i found, i'm still looking for some more stuff on the jungle, something about you can have bicycles and porsches, but not at the same time. if it's not a porch it's a mercedes.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html

is china a christian nation, spain, columbia, cuba, iran ?

also::   For example, Animal Farm isn't entirely just about farm animals.  :: it's not ?? how 'bout jurassic park, cause it was just on last night...?


----------



## MaggieMae

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which came first George Bush SR or Glenn Beck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really do get tired of trying to explain things that should be obvious. Bush41's vision of a New World Order had to do with global peace and cooperation. Beck's vision is one of destruction by evil people and acceptance by ignorant masses.
> 
> Here's the text of Bush's speech, with the excerpt describing what he meant. Of course you could have looked that up yourself before making a fool of yourself. Again.
> 
> War On Americans? | 'Toward a New World Order' A transcript of the speech by George Herbert Walker Bush September 11, 1990
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush41's vision of a New World Order had to do with global peace and cooperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I covered that part in my earlier reply how did you miss it?
> 
> 
> 
> The concept will be played like this to stop war the world must be unified and have one world law, with one leadership head.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That is *NOT* what Bush said, nor implied. Read it again. Unification among world leaders does *not* mean one world LAW. He wasn't stupid enough to believe that would happen except in...movies.


----------



## MarcATL

Wry Catcher said:


> I suggest everyone read this link before seeing the movie or reading Ayn Rand; this link is short, somewhat difficult, but provides a background for framing an opinion and or voting based on a work of art or one author's subjective world view.
> 
> Ethics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> Start at the top of the link, *I don't know why when opened the link goes to the middle of the article.*


It's because of the "hash tag." You know, the number sign.

Here's the full link: Ethics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]


----------



## Samson

MarcATL said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest everyone read this link before seeing the movie or reading Ayn Rand; this link is short, somewhat difficult, but provides a background for framing an opinion and or voting based on a work of art or one author's subjective world view.
> 
> Ethics*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> Start at the top of the link, *I don't know why when opened the link goes to the middle of the article.*
> 
> 
> 
> It's because of the "hash tag." You know, the number sign.
> 
> Here's the full link: Ethics*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Click to expand...


Marc, I opened the link, scaned it, and think I died, just a little, from boredom.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "New World Order" as envisioned by the current batch of loons can be found in Glenn Beck's bullshit. A Caliphate is a comin' soon to America (AND THE WORLD!!!), supported by the monied interests of George Soros and evil Communists posing as Washington liberal elites in partnership with the nasty physical destruction capabilities of Islamic terror organizations. A secret NWO is being established as we speak.
> 
> 
> 
> What's the one issue liberals and radical muslims agree on?
> 
> Hatred for the Jew and the west.  Strange bedfellows indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hate Jews and I hardly hate the west? WTF? Wow your brain kicked in, now it's gone again. Sad.
Click to expand...

Well that makes you atypical when you get down to it Maggie.  I've met more than a few liberals who hate the western (as typified by American, pre-multiculturalism, life) culture, and a few who blame Jews for the world's ills.  I've seen a lot of them on boards like this one too.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> Invasion of the Body Snatchers had a political message in it? I haven't seen the newer version, but I've seen the original several times, and I don't recall any. I thought they were just the victims of an alien invasion.
> 
> [Currently, I'm trying to follow "The Event," which had somewhat of a political message to it last season, but there's been a plot twist this year, so I don't think it's going there. Looks like those "aliens" might not be aliens at all, but the people who once inhabited earth and were shipped to outer space for some reason years ago.]
> 
> I love science fiction, if it has a credible plot, and I'm not usually looking for a _political_ message in any of it.


Watch the original 1950's version with Kevin McCarthy.  It's an allegory for the red scare.  Just like can be found in the 1950's War of the Worlds.  The best part is you CAN watch it without seeing the allegories... but then again, you don't watch it in college as a study of science fiction and it's ramification on society like I did.  Talk about your easy class, but very interesting what symbolism can work it's way in.

Oh how could I also forget "The Thing", both the original and John Carpenter's remake.


----------



## Kalam

Big Fitz said:


> [
> Tell me, do you feel the same way about the following works:
> 
> Fahrenheit 451
> Brave New World
> 1984
> A Handmaid's Tale
> Soylant Green
> Planet of the Apes
> A Clockwork Orange
> Invasion of the Body Snatchers
> War of the Worlds
> The Day The Earth Stood Still
> Logan's Run
> Metropolis
> Demolition Man
> The Dark Knight
> Blade Runner
> Avatar
> The Day After Tomorrow
> Minority Report
> 
> IIRC there are film versions of all these works.  All of them have a basic political agenda behind them in various forms of camouflage.
> 
> If you haven't seen these films, you should find them.  Some are very good (Blade Runner, Demolition Man, The Dark Knight), others are pretty lousy (A Handmaid's Tale, The Day After Tomorrow, Soylant Green), but all are interesting in how they express political philosophy and illustrate it in science fiction for mass consumption.  Shit, why, for instance is money never part of Star Trek?  Why is everyone working?  Has culture hit some eudamonic phase of life?  Hard to believe really and part of why I have a hard time enjoying the universe very much.
> 
> BTW, I view Atlas Shrugged as a Science Fiction work because of some small aspects of the technological devices in it, the time isn't defined well, plus the style of writing was reminiscent of classical science fiction in many ways.



IMO, most of those works use structures and devices like an innovative writing style (A Clockwork Orange), a well-constructed allegory (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Animal Farm), or a plot ostensibly unrelated to real politics (Dark Knight, Blade Runner) to provide unobtrusive and somewhat vague social commentary that leaves room for reader interpretation and allows the story to remain enjoyable to a wide audience. Rand's works of fiction use one-dimensional characters and thin, insipid plots to exposit her ideology without a hint of subtlety or depth. Fans of her work who don't sympathize with her beliefs seem to be few and far between and I think the reason for that is pretty obvious. Who picks up a work of science fiction and wants to slog through more than 1,000 pages of an author bluntly and repetitively dogmatizing her political views? Nothing I've read of hers really appeals to me. _Anthem_ was decent because she managed to keep it concise.


----------



## Big Fitz

Kalam said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Tell me, do you feel the same way about the following works:
> 
> Fahrenheit 451
> Brave New World
> 1984
> A Handmaid's Tale
> Soylant Green
> Planet of the Apes
> A Clockwork Orange
> Invasion of the Body Snatchers
> War of the Worlds
> The Day The Earth Stood Still
> Logan's Run
> Metropolis
> Demolition Man
> The Dark Knight
> Blade Runner
> Avatar
> The Day After Tomorrow
> Minority Report
> 
> IIRC there are film versions of all these works.  All of them have a basic political agenda behind them in various forms of camouflage.
> 
> If you haven't seen these films, you should find them.  Some are very good (Blade Runner, Demolition Man, The Dark Knight), others are pretty lousy (A Handmaid's Tale, The Day After Tomorrow, Soylant Green), but all are interesting in how they express political philosophy and illustrate it in science fiction for mass consumption.  Shit, why, for instance is money never part of Star Trek?  Why is everyone working?  Has culture hit some eudamonic phase of life?  Hard to believe really and part of why I have a hard time enjoying the universe very much.
> 
> BTW, I view Atlas Shrugged as a Science Fiction work because of some small aspects of the technological devices in it, the time isn't defined well, plus the style of writing was reminiscent of classical science fiction in many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, most of those works use structures and devices like an innovative writing style (A Clockwork Orange), a well-constructed allegory (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Animal Farm), or a plot ostensibly unrelated to real politics (Dark Knight, Blade Runner) to provide unobtrusive and somewhat vague social commentary that leaves room for reader interpretation and allows the story to remain enjoyable to a wide audience. Rand's works of fiction use one-dimensional characters and thin, insipid plots to exposit her ideology without a hint of subtlety or depth. Fans of her work who don't sympathize with her beliefs seem to be few and far between and I think the reason for that is pretty obvious. Who picks up a work of science fiction and wants to slog through more than 1,000 pages of an author bluntly and repetitively dogmatizing her political views? Nothing I've read of hers really appeals to me. _Anthem_ was decent because she managed to keep it concise.
Click to expand...

You're obviously not a nerd.  lol

Oh yeah, "Serenity" is another good one for that list.  Very anti-collectivist as well.  Slams the nanny state hard in the opening minutes and then proceeds to spend the rest of the movie showing why with one of the best denouements in the last decade of SF movies.

Secondly, it's obvious you don't quite understand why Rand writes in the style she does.  It took me a few tries then finally getting through the Fountainhead to figure it out.  They're Archetypes.  That's why they seem so one-dimensional.  They're exemplifying a viewpoint or philosophy.  Gail Wynand, Alvah Scarret, Ellsworth Toohey, James Taggart, Peter Keating, Westley Mouch, John Galt, Howard Roark... all archetypes.  To twist their tropes would have made the story muddled and block out the message she was trying to get across in an entertaining manner.  I know that works for some libs, to read something where everyone's a relativist example of all archetypes leaving you with a muddy pile.  It's nice every once in a while to see such clarity on characters.  It made them no more predictable in many cases if you had not been clued in to what role they were playing.  Your faint praise for Anthem is like saying "I like Haiku because it's short."

But then there are people who don't like Stephen King either because he's a boring formula writer who's character's are nothing more than home spun analogues of color and eventual victims for the big nasty thing in the story coming to kill them all.  

So, que sera sera.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's view of Ronald Reagan:
> 
> *In 1976, as Burns reports, she urged readers to oppose his campaign for president. "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan," she wrote, calling him a conservative in "the worst sense of the word," because he backed a mixed economy and opposed abortion rights.*
> 
> hmmm...
> 
> Ed Kilgore for Democracy Journal: In Galt They Trust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From the about part in your link*
> 
> The mission of Democracy is to build a vibrant and vital progressivism for the twenty-first century that builds on the movements proud history, is true to its central values, and is relevant to present times.
> 
> Democracy and progressivism two words that stand out. I call your source a load of bullshit.
Click to expand...


So you dispute that Ayn Rand ever said that?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's view of Ronald Reagan:
> 
> *In 1976, as Burns reports, she urged readers to oppose his campaign for president. "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan," she wrote, calling him a conservative in "the worst sense of the word," because he backed a mixed economy and opposed abortion rights.*
> 
> hmmm...
> 
> Ed Kilgore for Democracy Journal: In Galt They Trust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From the about part in your link*
> 
> The mission of Democracy is to build a vibrant and vital progressivism for the twenty-first century that builds on the movement&#8217;s proud history, is true to its central values, and is relevant to present times.
> 
> Democracy and progressivism two words that stand out. I call your source a load of bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you dispute that Ayn Rand ever said that?
Click to expand...


I find it suspicious that a progressive site would use a quote from her, without taking it out of context.+How ever I will add so what? she didn't like Reagan. Clinton doesn't like obama.


----------



## NYcarbineer

MaggieMae said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's view of Ronald Reagan:
> 
> *In 1976, as Burns reports, she urged readers to oppose his campaign for president. "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan," she wrote, calling him a conservative in "the worst sense of the word," because he backed a mixed economy and opposed abortion rights.*
> 
> hmmm...
> 
> Ed Kilgore for Democracy Journal: In Galt They Trust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From the about part in your link*
> 
> The mission of Democracy is to build a vibrant and vital progressivism for the twenty-first century that builds on the movements proud history, is true to its central values, and is relevant to present times.
> 
> Democracy and progressivism two words that stand out. I call your source a load of bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something wrong with your Google finger? It's an accurate quote, inserted many times in many articles. Here's one from a right-wing blogger, who expands Rand's distaste not only for Reagan but Greenspan and Bush41.
> 
> AriArmstrong.com: Reading Anne Heller on Ayn Rand
> 
> 
> 
> What about Reagan, who defined the politics of the 1980s? Rand wrote, "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan." Of course Reagan did nominate Greenspan, Rand's "disciple," to the Fed, an institution which Rand opposed. George H. W. Bush, who rounded out the '80s, was an even worse disaster by Rand's standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It's from the Ayn Rand Letter that was published in the 60's/70's.  It's amazing how these clowns react to a simple fact that they don't like.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From the about part in your link*
> 
> The mission of Democracy is to build a vibrant and vital progressivism for the twenty-first century that builds on the movements proud history, is true to its central values, and is relevant to present times.
> 
> Democracy and progressivism two words that stand out. I call your source a load of bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you dispute that Ayn Rand ever said that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it suspicious that a progressive site would use a quote from her, without taking it out of context.
Click to expand...


Then how about an Ayn Rand fan site?  Post 3:

When did Ayn Rand change her mind about Ronald Reagan? - Objectivist Living


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is dead on your statement not so much
> 
> 
> A Constitutional amendment is just like a wind you know it there but you can't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a guy who spends a good deal of his time here defending the 2nd AMENDMENT, it's odd you would also argue that the Constitution can't be amended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I say it can't be amended? I did ask how many times it has been amended in the past 80 years. Meaning it's hard to do because of the constitutional restraints. So are you going to answer the question?
Click to expand...


Ok, simple enough, straightforward question:

Since you don't believe there is any such thing as a representative Democracy, since you don't believe that any past or present republics are democracies...

...can you name any nations/societies past or present, that did or do in fact practiced what fits your definition of Democracy?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you dispute that Ayn Rand ever said that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it suspicious that a progressive site would use a quote from her, without taking it out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how about an Ayn Rand fan site?  Post 3:
> 
> When did Ayn Rand change her mind about Ronald Reagan? - Objectivist Living
Click to expand...


As I finished : However I will add so what? she didn't like Reagan. Clinton doesn't like obama. If that also susposed to mean anything?


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it suspicious that a progressive site would use a quote from her, without taking it out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then how about an Ayn Rand fan site?  Post 3:
> 
> When did Ayn Rand change her mind about Ronald Reagan? - Objectivist Living
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I finished : However I will add so what? she didn't like Reagan. Clinton doesn't like obama. If that also susposed to mean anything?
Click to expand...


It means she's not a Conservative, by any normal modern measure.


----------



## beowolfe

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



Have you ever wondered why this book didn't change the face of American politics when it came out?  Because back then, Americans knew BS when they saw it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a guy who spends a good deal of his time here defending the 2nd AMENDMENT, it's odd you would also argue that the Constitution can't be amended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say it can't be amended? I did ask how many times it has been amended in the past 80 years. Meaning it's hard to do because of the constitutional restraints. So are you going to answer the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, simple enough, straightforward question:
> 
> Since you don't believe there is any such thing as a representative Democracy, since you don't believe that any past or present republics are democracies...
> 
> ...can you name any nations/societies past or present, that did or do in fact practiced what fits your definition of Democracy?
Click to expand...

Germany was a democracy, James Madison form of government he created was a Republic. His iuntent was to created a democracy but with the final vote on the Constitution we ended up with a Constitutiona Republican I suggest you watch a more perfect union.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then how about an Ayn Rand fan site?  Post 3:
> 
> When did Ayn Rand change her mind about Ronald Reagan? - Objectivist Living
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I finished : However I will add so what? she didn't like Reagan. Clinton doesn't like obama. If that also susposed to mean anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means she's not a Conservative, by any normal modern measure.
Click to expand...


Hell she said Reagan wasn't a Conservative. Big deal.


----------



## washamericom

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I finished : However I will add so what? she didn't like Reagan. Clinton doesn't like obama. If that also susposed to mean anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means she's not a Conservative, by any normal modern measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell she said Reagan wasn't a Conservative. Big deal.
Click to expand...


ronny was a democrat, but never a liberal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

washamericom said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means she's not a Conservative, by any normal modern measure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell she said Reagan wasn't a Conservative. Big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ronny was a democrat, but never a liberal.
Click to expand...


He uss to be a democrat  I guess if I knew him as a democrat and he change I will consider him like I do Ariln Spector.


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the one issue liberals and radical muslims agree on?
> 
> Hatred for the Jew and the west.  Strange bedfellows indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Jews and I hardly hate the west? WTF? Wow your brain kicked in, now it's gone again. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that makes you atypical when you get down to it Maggie.  I've met more than a few liberals who hate the western (as typified by American, pre-multiculturalism, life) culture, and a few who blame Jews for the world's ills.  I've seen a lot of them on boards like this one too.
Click to expand...


So have I. And the majority are right wing extremists who also hate black people.


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invasion of the Body Snatchers had a political message in it? I haven't seen the newer version, but I've seen the original several times, and I don't recall any. I thought they were just the victims of an alien invasion.
> 
> [Currently, I'm trying to follow "The Event," which had somewhat of a political message to it last season, but there's been a plot twist this year, so I don't think it's going there. Looks like those "aliens" might not be aliens at all, but the people who once inhabited earth and were shipped to outer space for some reason years ago.]
> 
> I love science fiction, if it has a credible plot, and I'm not usually looking for a _political_ message in any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the original 1950's version with Kevin McCarthy.  It's an allegory for the red scare.  Just like can be found in the 1950's War of the Worlds.  The best part is you CAN watch it without seeing the allegories... but then again, you don't watch it in college as a study of science fiction and it's ramification on society like I did.  Talk about your easy class, but very interesting what symbolism can work it's way in.
> 
> Oh how could I also forget "The Thing", both the original and John Carpenter's remake.
Click to expand...


OR, sometimes a syfi movie is just a syfi movie. Was The Blob an instrument of politics too? I'm sorry, but I usually enjoy science fiction just for the possibilities, not looking for some political innuendos therein. These days, however, someone is sure to make anything political. I had a discussion a few weeks ago about The History Channel's series called "Ancient Aliens" which I find to be absolutely mind-blowing. A credible mix of theory based on scientific and archeological fact. But I was met with a barrage of criticisms calling The History Channel a left-wing vessel for some kind of distorted political messaging. I mean, seriously?


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say it can't be amended? I did ask how many times it has been amended in the past 80 years. Meaning it's hard to do because of the constitutional restraints. So are you going to answer the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, simple enough, straightforward question:
> 
> Since you don't believe there is any such thing as a representative Democracy, since you don't believe that any past or present republics are democracies...
> 
> ...can you name any nations/societies past or present, that did or do in fact practiced what fits your definition of Democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany was a democracy, James Madison form of government he created was a Republic. His iuntent was to created a democracy but with the final vote on the Constitution we ended up with a Constitutiona Republican I suggest you watch a more perfect union.
Click to expand...


Germany when?  What??!!


----------



## Samson

nycarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nycarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, simple enough, straightforward question:
> 
> Since you don't believe there is any such thing as a representative democracy, since you don't believe that any past or present republics are democracies...
> 
> ...can you name any nations/societies past or present, that did or do in fact practiced what fits your definition of democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> germany was a democracy, james madison form of government he created was a republic. His iuntent was to created a democracy but with the final vote on the constitution we ended up with a constitutiona republican i suggest you watch a more perfect union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> germany when?  What??!!
Click to expand...


423-425 ad


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, simple enough, straightforward question:
> 
> Since you don't believe there is any such thing as a representative Democracy, since you don't believe that any past or present republics are democracies...
> 
> ...can you name any nations/societies past or present, that did or do in fact practiced what fits your definition of Democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> Germany was a democracy, James Madison form of government he created was a Republic. His iuntent was to created a democracy but with the final vote on the Constitution we ended up with a Constitutiona Republican I suggest you watch a more perfect union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany when?  What??!!
Click to expand...


Right before the nazis took control of the government.


----------



## Polk

I hope no one has already mentioned this quote:



> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.


----------



## Polk

washamericom said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A single book is going to change American politics?  That sounds amazing!  When did this book come out?
> 
> Oh, wait..
> 
> 1957?
> 
> Maybe it will be a delayed reaction........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's a real thick book though man...
Click to expand...


So at least it can double as a door stop.


----------



## Polk

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling
Click to expand...


Not only did she do it, she wrote an article defending her decision to do so.

Government Grants and Scholarships &mdash; Ayn Rand Lexicon


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Polk said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only did she do it, she wrote an article defending her decision to do so.
> 
> Government Grants and Scholarships &mdash; Ayn*Rand Lexicon
Click to expand...

From your link I'm still tring too find where she was broke and had to rely on SS


----------



## Bern80

Polk said:


> I hope no one has already mentioned this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Click to expand...


Don't think so, but have seen it. It's interesting how much weight you give to a statement so lacking in anything remotely resembling an actual reasoned argument.


----------



## Polk

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence to support your lie, thank you for trolling
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os4ORO8FMz8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did she do it, she wrote an article defending her decision to do so.
> 
> Government Grants and Scholarships &mdash; Ayn*Rand Lexicon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link I'm still tring too find where she was broke and had to rely on SS
Click to expand...


You'll find it here.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/100-Voices-Oral-History-Rand/dp/0451231309]Amazon.com: 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (9780451231307): Scott McConnell: Books[/ame]


----------



## washamericom

maggiemae said:


> big fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maggiemae said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't hate jews and i hardly hate the west? Wtf? Wow your brain kicked in, now it's gone again. Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> well that makes you atypical when you get down to it maggie.  I've met more than a few liberals who hate the western (as typified by american, pre-multiculturalism, life) culture, and a few who blame jews for the world's ills.  I've seen a lot of them on boards like this one too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so have i. And the majority are right wing extremists who also hate black people.
Click to expand...


duh, right wing extremists are everyone who didn't vote for obama

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old&#8217;s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

this would be funnier if the punchline was "the other one involved arks"
or "and the other was in latin"
or "the other one involved orcas"
or.... "the other one was about people in misourri speaking latin while being on welfare"... matbe not so much.
anyway i was just about to post that quote.... thanks alot


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Polk said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did she do it, she wrote an article defending her decision to do so.
> 
> Government Grants and Scholarships &mdash; Ayn*Rand Lexicon
> 
> 
> 
> From your link I'm still tring too find where she was broke and had to rely on SS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll find it here.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/100-Voices-Oral-History-Rand/dp/0451231309]Amazon.com: 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (9780451231307): Scott McConnell: Books[/ame]
Click to expand...


So it's in this book and not in the other book? Make up my mind for me. OH forgot, it's not there either


----------



## NYcarbineer

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany was a democracy, James Madison form of government he created was a Republic. His iuntent was to created a democracy but with the final vote on the Constitution we ended up with a Constitutiona Republican I suggest you watch a more perfect union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany when?  What??!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right before the nazis took control of the government.
Click to expand...


The Weimar Republic was a democracy based on your narrow use of the term 'democracy'?

Izzat a joke? (that's me doing a German accent lol)


----------



## MaggieMae

NYcarbineer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, simple enough, straightforward question:
> 
> Since you don't believe there is any such thing as a representative Democracy, since you don't believe that any past or present republics are democracies...
> 
> ...can you name any nations/societies past or present, that did or do in fact practiced what fits your definition of Democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> Germany was a democracy, James Madison form of government he created was a Republic. His iuntent was to created a democracy but with the final vote on the Constitution we ended up with a Constitutiona Republican I suggest you watch a more perfect union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany when?  What??!!
Click to expand...


Before the Reichstag fire which engulfed the German parliament building just before the election. It guaranteed Hitler would be made Chancellor, and he thereafter immediately set out to get the Enabling Act passed which allowed him to Nazify the bureaucracy, the judiciary, replace all labor unions with the Nazi-controlled German Labor Front, and ban all political parties except his own. 

Now of course, German is a parliamentary republic, based on representative democracy.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Oddly enough, last fall I bought a boxed set (in paperback) of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead for 1.00 at a book sale.  I've found that getting up the gumption to plunge into them is kind of like getting up the gumption to clean the refrigerator.

At least the market appears to have properly valued the books.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> maggiemae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> big fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> well that makes you atypical when you get down to it maggie.  I've met more than a few liberals who hate the western (as typified by american, pre-multiculturalism, life) culture, and a few who blame jews for the world's ills.  I've seen a lot of them on boards like this one too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so have i. And the majority are right wing extremists who also hate black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> duh, right wing extremists are everyone who didn't vote for obama
> 
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
> 
> this would be funnier if the punchline was "the other one involved arks"
> or "and the other was in latin"
> or "the other one involved orcas"
> or.... "the other one was about people in misourri speaking latin while being on welfare"... matbe not so much.
> anyway i was just about to post that quote.... thanks alot
Click to expand...


Sure. I take it you don't visit many other message boards. The ones here are careful not to lay themselves bare, but it's easy to read between the lines. Now I'll be accused of "race baiting." Watch for it.


----------



## Toro

Polk said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A single book is going to change American politics?  That sounds amazing!  When did this book come out?
> 
> Oh, wait..
> 
> 1957?
> 
> Maybe it will be a delayed reaction........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's a real thick book though man...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So at least it can double as a door stop.
Click to expand...


It took that long for the first person to finally finish reading the book.


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's a real thick book though man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So at least it can double as a door stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It took that long for the first person to finally finish reading the book.
Click to expand...




Ok, now I get it.


----------



## Samson

NYcarbineer said:


> Oddly enough, last fall I bought a boxed set (in paperback) of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead for 1.00 at a book sale.  I've found that getting up the gumption to plunge into them is kind of like getting up the gumption to clean the refrigerator.
> 
> At least the market appears to have properly valued the books.



Why would you buy them at all?

I tried, I really did, to read One or the Other (all I recall was a rape scene between the frustrated architect and some women vaguely associated with the plot).

I'm certain the movie will be better.


----------



## Bern80

Toro said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's a real thick book though man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So at least it can double as a door stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It took that long for the first person to finally finish reading the book.
Click to expand...


In what other forum would rebuttals like these hold any water. "It's a long book so it's dumb", "It's not realistic", the lameness goes on and on. I have to hear a single reasoned rebuttal to the concept of objectivism.


----------



## Toro

Bern80 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> So at least it can double as a door stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It took that long for the first person to finally finish reading the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what other forum would rebuttals like these hold any water. "It's a long book so it's dumb", "It's not realistic", the lameness goes on and on. I have to hear a single reasoned rebuttal to the concept of objectivism.
Click to expand...


It's a joke.

I was part of the Objectivist club in University.  I still have all my Ayn Rand books.


----------



## Big Fitz

Polk said:


> I hope no one has already mentioned this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Click to expand...

James Taggart and Westley Mouch aren't Orcs.  Just trolls.


----------



## Big Fitz

Polk said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A single book is going to change American politics?  That sounds amazing!  When did this book come out?
> 
> Oh, wait..
> 
> 1957?
> 
> Maybe it will be a delayed reaction........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's a real thick book though man...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So at least it can double as a door stop.
Click to expand...

Naw.  I already use "Silent Spring" for that.


----------



## Bern80

Toro said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It took that long for the first person to finally finish reading the book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what other forum would rebuttals like these hold any water. "It's a long book so it's dumb", "It's not realistic", the lameness goes on and on. I have to hear a single reasoned rebuttal to the concept of objectivism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a joke.
> 
> I was part of the Objectivist club in University.  I still have all my Ayn Rand books.
Click to expand...


I kind of figured that coming from you. It's just annoying seeing such juvenile posts from those that actually do mean it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Samson said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, last fall I bought a boxed set (in paperback) of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead for 1.00 at a book sale.  I've found that getting up the gumption to plunge into them is kind of like getting up the gumption to clean the refrigerator.
> 
> At least the market appears to have properly valued the books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you buy them at all?
> 
> I tried, I really did, to read One or the Other (all I recall was a rape scene between the frustrated architect and some women vaguely associated with the plot).
> 
> I'm certain the movie will be better.
Click to expand...


Yeah, apparently Rand's 'hero' was a rapist and a terrorist.

Hence the conservative adoration, I guess.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Samson said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, last fall I bought a boxed set (in paperback) of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead for 1.00 at a book sale.  I've found that getting up the gumption to plunge into them is kind of like getting up the gumption to clean the refrigerator.
> 
> At least the market appears to have properly valued the books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you buy them at all?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I was an astonishingly voracious reader in my youth.  I have this recurring illusion that that appetite will magically return one day.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Soggy in NOLA said:


> No doubt _Das Kapital _was a damn fine read though...



Capital - Vol. 1 was a bit dry, but worth reading. Those who disparage Marx without knowledge are little different than the cretins here who attack Rand, when they clearly never read a word she wrote.

Economic Manuscripts: Capital: Volume One

Vol. 2 is just a mess, Marx was clearly in his twilight by then and Engles really couldn't pinch hit for him.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rikules said:


> newt gingrich "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our (christian) religious beliefs
> and see to iit that they can NEVER BE CHANGED AGAIN"



What a mindless, lying little cockroach you are.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on.



Dude, you have a sub-60 IQ.

Stick to "One Fish, Two Fish."


----------



## Uncensored2008

snjmom said:


> Just wiki it.



This popped up in the middle of 2010, based on the verbal claim of Evva Pryror. Pryror can and has produced no substantiating documentation nor records to support her claim.

Doesn't matter to the left though, wild allegations are "truth" when hurled at enemies of the party.


----------



## washamericom

money is like booze... there's too much of it to go around.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ayn Rand wrote while high on Benzedrine.  That explains the thousands of pages.


----------



## washamericom

NYcarbineer said:


> Ayn Rand wrote while high on Benzedrine.  That explains the thousands of pages.



what's your excuse ?

So at least it can double as a door stop.
Naw. I already use "Silent Spring" for that. 

this is sum funy shit..


----------



## noose4

This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.


----------



## Anguille

washamericom said:


> *"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics*


eh ..._shrug_


----------



## washamericom

noose4 said:


> This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.


----------



## Samson

NYcarbineer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, last fall I bought a boxed set (in paperback) of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead for 1.00 at a book sale.  I've found that getting up the gumption to plunge into them is kind of like getting up the gumption to clean the refrigerator.
> 
> At least the market appears to have properly valued the books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you buy them at all?
> 
> I tried, I really did, to read One or the Other (all I recall was a rape scene between the frustrated architect and some women vaguely associated with the plot).
> 
> I'm certain the movie will be better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, apparently Rand's 'hero' was a rapist and a terrorist.
> 
> Hence the conservative adoration, I guess.
Click to expand...


No, I think the conservative adoration has more to do with Rand's support of Moral Objectivism.



But don't let that stop you.


----------



## washamericom

Samson said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you buy them at all?
> 
> I tried, I really did, to read One or the Other (all I recall was a rape scene between the frustrated architect and some women vaguely associated with the plot).
> 
> I'm certain the movie will be better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, apparently Rand's 'hero' was a rapist and a terrorist.
> 
> Hence the conservative adoration, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think the conservative adoration has more to do with Rand's support of Moral Objectivism.
> 
> 
> 
> But don't let that stop you.
Click to expand...


u r wise samson... you've brought this full circle


----------



## NYcarbineer

Samson said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you buy them at all?
> 
> I tried, I really did, to read One or the Other (all I recall was a rape scene between the frustrated architect and some women vaguely associated with the plot).
> 
> I'm certain the movie will be better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, apparently Rand's 'hero' was a rapist and a terrorist.
> 
> Hence the conservative adoration, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think the conservative adoration has more to do with Rand's support of Moral Objectivism.
> 
> 
> 
> But don't let that stop you.
Click to expand...


In reality, conservatives adore her because they heard they're supposed to.


----------



## NYcarbineer

noose4 said:


> This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.



The rightwing herd will dutifully go see it they way they buy the stupid rightwing books.


----------



## NYcarbineer

washamericom said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand wrote while high on Benzedrine.  That explains the thousands of pages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what's your excuse ?
> 
> So at least it can double as a door stop.
> Naw. I already use "Silent Spring" for that.
> 
> this is sum funy shit..
Click to expand...


What's the joke?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Toro said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's a real thick book though man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So at least it can double as a door stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It took that long for the first person to finally finish reading the book.
Click to expand...


I started reading one.  You have to break the task down into smaller pieces, to endure getting through it.  Kind of like a prison sentence (so I've heard).

I figure 35 pages a day and I'm out...errr I mean finished... in a month.


----------



## Samson

NYcarbineer said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rightwing herd will dutifully go see it they way they buy the stupid rightwing books.
Click to expand...




Buying books is for suckers who finance a public library, and refuse to use it.


----------



## Bern80

NYcarbineer said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rightwing herd will dutifully go see it they way they buy the stupid rightwing books.
Click to expand...


Yeah cause that's sooooo much different than the left's circle jerk over an Inconvenient Truth or anything with Michael Moore's name on it.


----------



## Big Fitz

noose4 said:


> This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.


hmmmmmm smells like desperate hope.


----------



## Uncensored2008

NYcarbineer said:


> Ayn Rand wrote while high on Benzedrine.  That explains the thousands of pages.



And she tortured kittens and didn't recycle plastic bottles..... She might have had six toes, too!

Sigh; the lower the IQ, the further to the left.


----------



## Uncensored2008

NYcarbineer said:


> The rightwing herd will dutifully go see it they way they buy the stupid rightwing books.



Such is the curse of being literate.

Alas, you need never burden yourself with such concerns. 

Just dutifully bleat "Ohhh Bahhh Bahhh Bahhh Mahhh" as you are programmed to do...


----------



## MaggieMae

NYcarbineer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, apparently Rand's 'hero' was a rapist and a terrorist.
> 
> Hence the conservative adoration, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think the conservative adoration has more to do with Rand's support of Moral Objectivism.
> 
> 
> 
> But don't let that stop you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In reality, conservatives adore her because they heard they're supposed to.
Click to expand...


To bad we can't give a pop quiz, but they'd just Google their answers.


----------



## MaggieMae

Bern80 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rightwing herd will dutifully go see it they way they buy the stupid rightwing books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah cause that's sooooo much different than the left's circle jerk over an Inconvenient Truth or anything with Michael Moore's name on it.
Click to expand...


That much is true, although I did try to make it through Ann Coulter's books "Treason" and "Slander." Michael Moore at least stirs controversy and jolts people into fact-checking, and thereby become more knowledgeable. "An Inconvenient Truth" was based on scientific evidence that produced a scary theory, but Gore became the whipping boy because he was the messenger of dire predictions. Ironically, if it had been a high-profile Republican who had written the book, attitudes would be completely the opposite and there wouldn't have been such an intensive search for other pieces of *proof* that global warming is a myth or a hoax. The right always has to be right, or they go bananas.


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think the conservative adoration has more to do with Rand's support of Moral Objectivism.
> 
> 
> 
> But don't let that stop you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reality, conservatives adore her because they heard they're supposed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah right, obama's the president and _we're_ the sheep, nice try... "based on scientific evidence.".  LOL do you still believe all of it ?
Click to expand...


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.
> 
> 
> 
> hmmmmmm smells like desperate hope.
Click to expand...


If it gets enough publicity, it won't be a flop (financially anyway), and I'll wait until it comes out on DVD/DVR. In the meantime, though, I don't plan on re-reading the book so I won't know if the film stays true to the book. If it doesn't, the critics will be all over it.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In reality, conservatives adore her because they heard they're supposed to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah right, obama's the president and _we're_ the sheep, nice try... "based on scientific truth".  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that comment have to do with anything? You might try quoting the whole thing, so people can follow along. Even I don't get your point if you're referring to something I said.
Click to expand...


----------



## Samson

MaggieMae said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think the conservative adoration has more to do with Rand's support of Moral Objectivism.
> 
> 
> 
> But don't let that stop you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reality, conservatives adore her because they heard they're supposed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To bad we can't give a pop quiz, but they'd just Google their answers.
Click to expand...


^^^^

Jealous that they can google rather than pulling them out of their butts.


----------



## MaggieMae

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In reality, conservatives adore her because they heard they're supposed to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad we can't give a pop quiz, but they'd just Google their answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> Jealous that they can google rather than pulling them out of their butts.
Click to expand...


Did you finally figure it out? If so, hopefully you'll now start backing up your bullshit.


----------



## Samson

MaggieMae said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> To bad we can't give a pop quiz, but they'd just Google their answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> Jealous that they can google rather than pulling them out of their butts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you finally figure it out? If so, hopefully you'll now start backing up your bullshit.
Click to expand...


Rapier Wit, sharp as a meatball, as always.....


----------



## noose4

Big Fitz said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.
> 
> 
> 
> hmmmmmm smells like desperate hope.
Click to expand...




Sounds like somebody is fantasizing that such a movie will be a hit when it obviously wont be, the subject matter will not interest the common American (as its not a slasher or fart humor type movie) or the American intellectual(as conservative philosophy does not equate to intellectualism) thus leaving a small audience made up of true believers


----------



## MaggieMae

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> Jealous that they can google rather than pulling them out of their butts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you finally figure it out? If so, hopefully you'll now start backing up your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rapier Wit, sharp as a meatball, as always.....
Click to expand...







Not to worry, big guy, you'll grow a brain someday that fits your fat head.


----------



## washamericom

NYcarbineer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, apparently Rand's 'hero' was a rapist and a terrorist.
> 
> Hence the conservative adoration, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think the conservative adoration has more to do with Rand's support of Moral Objectivism.
> 
> 
> 
> But don't let that stop you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In reality, conservatives adore her because they heard they're supposed to.
Click to expand...


!   sorry...
also   That much is true, although I did try to make it through Ann Coulter's books "Treason" and "Slander." Michael Moore at least stirs controversy and jolts people into fact-checking, and thereby become more knowledgeable. "An Incontinient, leaky Truth" was based on scientific evidence that produced a scary theory, but Gore became the whipping boy because he was the messenger of dire predictions. Ironically, if it had been a high-profile Republican who had written the book, attitudes would be completely the opposite and there wouldn't have been such an intensive search for other pieces of *proof* that global warming is a myth or a hoax. The right always has to be right, or they go bananas. 

not much, and that word consensus, my own father signed a petition against kyoto, alond with 17,000 or so other scientists, and he was no rube i tell you. gore made it sound as if the entire scientific community was in agreement, simply not true. why would he do that? 
then i think it's time to get into fear mongering and demogouguery. mick 'mo hates the states. big fat lying hypocritical capitalistic pig.


----------



## washamericom

NYcarbineer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, last fall I bought a boxed set (in paperback) of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead for 1.00 at a book sale.  I've found that getting up the gumption to plunge into them is kind of like getting up the gumption to clean the refrigerator.
> 
> At least the market appears to have properly valued the books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you buy them at all?
> 
> I tried, I really did, to read One or the Other (all I recall was a rape scene between the frustrated architect and some women vaguely associated with the plot).
> 
> I'm certain the movie will be better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are not alone, i love the ones that read the first 900 pages of atlas, couldn't finish because of literary impotence, or something...
> 
> Yeah, apparently Rand's 'hero' was a rapist and a terrorist.
> 
> Hence the conservative adoration, I guess.
Click to expand...


this is a good example of peer pressure thinking, well what does obama think ?
dominique francon was actually the lead character in the novel (protagonist #1), how would you know, vaguely


----------



## Uncensored2008

MaggieMae said:


> To bad we can't give a pop quiz, but they'd just Google their answers.



A pop quiz on what?

Would it be something like;

Q1. Obama is;

a.) God
b.) God
c.) God

Q2. Obama must be worshiped because he is;

a.) God
b.) God
c.) God

Q3. Obama is the one we have all waited on because he is;

a.) God
b.) God
c.) God

LOL

You mindless sycophants are funny, in that whole "Manson cult creepy" kinda way..


----------



## Uncensored2008

MaggieMae said:


> That much is true, although I did try to make it through Ann Coulter's books "Treason" and "Slander."



Love her or hate her, Coulter is funny as hell. If you couldn't "make it through" one of her books, it's because you either never picked it up or lack the literacy level requisite to decipher the polysyllabic words she uses.



> Michael Moore at least stirs controversy and jolts people into fact-checking,



Moore is demagogue, his works are dishonest and incendiary.



> "An Inconvenient Truth" was based on scientific evidence
> that produced a scary theory,



No it wasn't. It was based on a religious fantasy promoted by fanatics and frauds.

Gore is a huckster who made himself obscenely wealthy by defrauding the gullible.


----------



## washamericom

Uncensored2008 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> That much is true, although I did try to make it through Ann Coulter's books "Treason" and "Slander."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love her or hate her, Coulter is funny as hell. If you couldn't "make it through" one of her books, it's because you either never picked it up or lack the literacy level requisite to decipher the polysyllabic words she uses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Moore at least stirs controversy and jolts people into fact-checking,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moore is demagogue, his works are dishonest and incendiary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "An Inconvenient Truth" was based on scientific evidence
> that produced a scary theory,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it wasn't. It was based on a religious fantasy promoted by fanatics and frauds.
> 
> Gore is a huckster who made himself obscenely wealthy by defrauding the gullible.
Click to expand...


awesome 2008 !!! i just noticed that all three text ads above  are atlas shrugged. i just went to godaddy and registered atlasshruggedstore.com, i have no idea what to do with it, something objective and capitalistic no doubt, this is such a great country.
i never read an ann coulter book, i've been kicked off her forum coulterchat, twice, i didn't even do nothin"
i suppose she would be a dagny taggert or dominique francon


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> To bad we can't give a pop quiz, but they'd just Google their answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> Jealous that they can google rather than pulling them out of their butts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you finally figure it out? If so, hopefully you'll now start backing up your bullshit.
Click to expand...


no offense maggie but you don't leave for yourself much wiggle room in that dept.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:
			
		

> not much, and that word consensus, my own father signed a petition against kyoto, alond with 17,000 or so other scientists, and he was no rube i tell you. gore made it sound as if the entire scientific community was in agreement, simply not true. why would he do that?
> then i think it's time to get into fear mongering and demogouguery. mick 'mo hates the states. big fat lying hypocritical capitalistic pig.


----------



## MaggieMae

Uncensored2008 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> To bad we can't give a pop quiz, but they'd just Google their answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pop quiz on what?
> 
> Would it be something like;
> 
> Q1. Obama is;
> 
> a.) God
> b.) God
> c.) God
> 
> Q2. Obama must be worshiped because he is;
> 
> a.) God
> b.) God
> c.) God
> 
> Q3. Obama is the one we have all waited on because he is;
> 
> a.) God
> b.) God
> c.) God
> 
> LOL
> 
> You mindless sycophants are funny, in that whole "Manson cult creepy" kinda way..
Click to expand...


Pop quiz on Atlas Shrugged, boopie. But something tells me that even if you took your own pop quiz above, you'd flunk, so the fact that you missed the point isn't surprising.


----------



## Uncensored2008

MaggieMae said:


> Pop quiz on Atlas Shrugged, boopie. But something tells me that even if you took your own pop quiz above, you'd flunk, so the fact that you missed the point isn't surprising.



Something tells me that you would pick answer "a" on every question...

How many times DID you vote for Obama?


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not much, and that word consensus, my own father signed a petition against kyoto, alond with 17,000 or so other scientists, and he was no rube i tell you. gore made it sound as if the entire scientific community was in agreement, simply not true. why would he do that?
> then i think it's time to get into fear mongering and demogouguery. mick 'mo hates the states. big fat lying hypocritical capitalistic pig.
Click to expand...


why would he keep promoting the inconvenient truth and peddling junk science that he knew wasn't true?  that's pathological. unless the cap and trade intellectual/educational complex and money had something to do with it all, not to mention the shot at "world government"


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> Jealous that they can google rather than pulling them out of their butts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you finally figure it out? If so, hopefully you'll now start backing up your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no offense maggie but you don't leave for yourself much wiggle room in that dept.
Click to expand...


Where have I not backed up what I say? This thread is loaded with links I posted. You can call it bullshit if you want, but I can prove what the bull ate for dinner anyway.

Samson has a personal vendetta against me. I stripped him of his bragging rights one day.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Bern80 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rightwing herd will dutifully go see it they way they buy the stupid rightwing books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah cause that's sooooo much different than the left's circle jerk over an Inconvenient Truth or anything with Michael Moore's name on it.
Click to expand...




Ah, so you've decided that this will be the equivalent of a Michael Moore movie?

Then the right should ridicule it mercilessly, except for the hypocrites.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rightwing herd will dutifully go see it they way they buy the stupid rightwing books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause that's sooooo much different than the left's circle jerk over an Inconvenient Truth or anything with Michael Moore's name on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you've decided that this will be the equivalent of a Michael Moore movie?
> 
> Then the right should ridicule it mercilessly, except for the hypocrites.
Click to expand...


Do you really want to use that H word? Do you really want to make my day punk, well do you?
The oooooooooooooooooooooobama's.


----------



## konradv

I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!


----------



## Samson

konradv said:


> I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!





How is that ironic?

Have they taught Irony in your 9th grade English class yet?


----------



## konradv

Samson said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that ironic?
> 
> Have they taught Irony in your 9th grade English class yet?
Click to expand...


Not familiar with the word "irony" or just not familiar with Rand?  It was her contention that the Robin Hood myth was one of the most damaging to her view of how society should be.


----------



## Samson

konradv said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that ironic?
> 
> Have they taught Irony in your 9th grade English class yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not familiar with the word "irony" or just not familiar with Rand?  It was her contention that the Robin Hood myth was one of the most damaging to her view of how society should be.
Click to expand...


Ah, bravo.

No, I'm not familiar with that contention, but I can see where robbery would be a fitting analogy for taxation.


----------



## Big Fitz

konradv said:


> I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!


Huh... summed up: 

Atlas Shrugged, Liberals Screamed and Gibbered.


----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... summed up:
> 
> Atlas Shrugged, Liberals Screamed and Gibbered.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!  Liberals gibbered?!?!  Then why are you always the one spouting gibberish?


----------



## konradv

Samson said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that ironic?
> 
> Have they taught Irony in your 9th grade English class yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not familiar with the word "irony" or just not familiar with Rand?  It was her contention that the Robin Hood myth was one of the most damaging to her view of how society should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, bravo.
> 
> No, I'm not familiar with that contention, but I can see where robbery would be a fitting analogy for taxation.
Click to expand...


It was more the idea of "taking from the rich and giving to the poor".  She considered it proto-Marxist.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not much, and that word consensus, my own father signed a petition against kyoto, alond with 17,000 or so other scientists, and he was no rube i tell you. gore made it sound as if the entire scientific community was in agreement, simply not true. why would he do that?
> then i think it's time to get into fear mongering and demogouguery. mick 'mo hates the states. big fat lying hypocritical capitalistic pig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would he keep promoting the inconvenient truth and peddling junk science that he knew wasn't true?  that's pathological. unless the cap and trade intellectual/educational complex and money had something to do with it all, not to mention the shot at "world government"
Click to expand...


Because it isn't junk science. Maybe the ice melt isn't going to have such dramatic effects as portrayed in Inconvenient Truth, but there is no denying that the arctic ice masses are melting. And _puleeze_ don't pull up all of YOUR select scientific evidence, which pales in comparison to the consensus science on the matter.

And your leap from global warming to New World Order is stunningly bizarre.


----------



## Uncensored2008

MaggieMae said:


> Because it isn't junk science.



You didn't type that with a straight face.

AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.



> Maybe the ice melt isn't going to have such dramatic effects as portrayed in Inconvenient Truth, but there is no denying that the arctic ice masses are melting.



WERE melting.

The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.

Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.

Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.

Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.


----------



## Samson

konradv said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not familiar with the word "irony" or just not familiar with Rand?  It was her contention that the Robin Hood myth was one of the most damaging to her view of how society should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, bravo.
> 
> No, I'm not familiar with that contention, but I can see where robbery would be a fitting analogy for taxation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was more the idea of "taking from the rich and giving to the poor".  She considered it proto-Marxist.
Click to expand...


"Taking" is considered "Robbery" unless the government does it.


----------



## Big Fitz

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... summed up:
> 
> Atlas Shrugged, Liberals Screamed and Gibbered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!  Liberals gibbered?!?!  Then why are you always the one spouting gibberish?
Click to expand...

Actually the technical term is "Libberish".  I'm not the one prognosticating utter failure because the philosophy is alien.


----------



## washamericom

Quote: Originally Posted by MaggieMae  
The founders didn't mean the Republican PARTY, a/k/a the GOP. At the time of the signing of The Constitution, there were only two parties: The Federalists and (ironically) the Democratic-Republican Party! It wasn't until early in the 20th Century that the Democrats and Republicans split into the two parties we now know. Geesh--do some homework.



let's have a quick look at the bulls supper. you speak in sweeping generalities and without accurate substance, then you admonish others for not seeing the liberal light. did you read the book? there is a parallel between the government in the novel and the type of overreaching government we have today, only we'll have none of it. 
with respect to global warming and cap and trade, they are stepping stones to a "centralized world government" (ad hoc). let me ask you this, why would, by your own admission, gore need to_ embellish_ the facts to sell his theory ?. why is so much wrong about the movie. why has it spiraled into scandal. why did he let the animated polar bear die, yet he saved the frog.
      the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere is a created myth, it would be like finding the average # in the new york phonebook, or the average colour. the very name _greenhouse effect_ is a misnomer, it implies that there is a solid barrier between us and space. the average temp of 95 or so % of the earth's mass is 1000 degrees centegrade, and carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring and much needed gas is less than a third of 1 percent of the "air". the prediction models are weak.
    there is no evidence that "global warming" is caused by man, and when asked, of a _real _scientist, a physics professor at MIT, what is the cause of global warming??  he said "the sun"....
so it all ties together magpie, scientific theory, new world order, sweeping generalities and wrongs facts, like the ones above posted by you, i think, ... and i apologise if i'm wrong.  
 your consensus is wrong, and lincoln really was the first republican, but not in the early 1900's. other than that mrs lincoln, how did you like the play.


----------



## hipeter924

MaggieMae said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you finally figure it out? If so, hopefully you'll now start backing up your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no offense maggie but you don't leave for yourself much wiggle room in that dept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have I not backed up what I say? This thread is loaded with links I posted. You can call it bullshit if you want, but I can prove what the bull ate for dinner anyway.
> 
> Samson has a personal vendetta against me. I stripped him of his bragging rights one day.
Click to expand...

No he has a vendetta against anyone that thinks critically, doesn't believe in propaganda, and tries to learn the truth.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it isn't junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't type that with a straight face.
> 
> AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the ice melt isn't going to have such dramatic effects as portrayed in Inconvenient Truth, but there is no denying that the arctic ice masses are melting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WERE melting.
> 
> The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.
> 
> Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.
> 
> Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.
> 
> Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.
Click to expand...


The cycle has shifted, has it?   Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down?  We know they trap energy so, if there indeed has been a shift, they should be going down, right?  How about showing us THAT data?  I don't really believe you know much about the subject, except what's been spoon-fed to you by the talking heads.  A good way of telling one's level of knowledge is by what's discussed.  Those who know the subject discuss the data.  Those who don't, discuss Gore.


----------



## washamericom

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it isn't junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't type that with a straight face.
> 
> AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the ice melt isn't going to have such dramatic effects as portrayed in Inconvenient Truth, but there is no denying that the arctic ice masses are melting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WERE melting.
> 
> The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.
> 
> Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.
> 
> Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.
> 
> Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cycle has shifted, has it?   Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down?  We know they trap energy so, if there indeed has been a shift, they should be going down, right?  How about showing us THAT data?  I don't really believe you know much about the subject, except what's been spoon-fed to you by the talking heads.  A good way of telling one's level of knowledge is by what's discussed.  Those who know the subject discuss the data.  Those who don't, discuss Gore.
Click to expand...


have you read the book ?? we have to ask now cause people haven't been reading the book. do you really still belive in "global warming" cause by man ?


----------



## konradv

washamericom said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't type that with a straight face.
> 
> AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.
> 
> 
> 
> WERE melting.
> 
> The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.
> 
> Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.
> 
> Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.
> 
> Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cycle has shifted, has it?   Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down?  We know they trap energy so, if there indeed has been a shift, they should be going down, right?  How about showing us THAT data?  I don't really believe you know much about the subject, except what's been spoon-fed to you by the talking heads.  A good way of telling one's level of knowledge is by what's discussed.  Those who know the subject discuss the data.  Those who don't, discuss Gore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have you read the book ?? we have to ask now cause people haven't been reading the book. do you really still belive in "global warming" cause by man ?
Click to expand...


If it's not caused by man, where's the extra CO2 coming from, given that its concentration has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution?  Until you answer that question, your contention doesn't hold water scientifically.  As a matter of fact the ONLY place the deniers have gained ground is in the POLITICAL arena, because neither science nor logic are on their side.


----------



## washamericom

there was never a consensus, but they said there was... why?. without getting into the physics of co2, i'm going with the m.i.t.  guy.

CO2 Science

this is a little dry but worth reading. don't forget the argument is, you think it's a lock that global warming (when there is such a thing) is manmade, and i think we don't have enough evidence to verify and conclude your claim.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".

and:

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

When we consider a short period, for example an 11 years period we can argue that the intensity of the solar irradiance is decreasing; however, if we consider a longer period, for example 400 years, we can see that the intensity of solar irradiance has not decreased. Some 400 years ago the solar irradiance intensity was 1365.5946 W/m^-2, while in 2000 the total solar irradiance intensity was 1366.6620 W/m^2. This year the Sun has been mostly spotless, but the solar irradiance intensity has been 1365 W/m^-2. This constitutes evidence on the existence of other solar "pulses" that we have not understood well:

The Inconstant Sun - NASA Science

Regarding the particularity of CO2 on the global warming, I don't see why to blame the CO2 of GW when its particular thermal characteristics show that the CO2 is not capable of producing any warming. The Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 0.00034 atm*m, wich limits the absorptivity-emissivity of the CO2 to only 0.00092 (dimensionless value), not the 0.2 given by the IPCC. The absorptivity-emissivity of CO2 is 0.00092 conduces to its total emittancy of barely 0.414 W/m^2, not the 5.35 W/m^2 given by the IPCC. If I was to blame any atmospheric gas of a GH effect, I would blame the Water Vapor, not the the coolant CO2.

finally: Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

 the computer generated prediction models have always been weak. i would feel better if the scientists on the government dole were working to disprove this funky assertion. i've tried to present items that aren't too technical.

it's all in the book "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand.


----------



## konradv

washamericom said:


> there was never a consensus, but they said there was... why?. without getting into the physics of co2, i'm going with the m.i.t.  guy.
> 
> CO2 Science
> 
> this is a little dry but worth reading. don't forget the argument is, you think it's a lock that global warming (when there is such a thing) is manmade, and i think we don't have enough evidence to verify and conclude your claim.
> 
> The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".
> 
> and:
> 
> Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
> 
> When we consider a short period, for example an 11 years period we can argue that the intensity of the solar irradiance is decreasing; however, if we consider a longer period, for example 400 years, we can see that the intensity of solar irradiance has not decreased. Some 400 years ago the solar irradiance intensity was 1365.5946 W/m^-2, while in 2000 the total solar irradiance intensity was 1366.6620 W/m^2. This year the Sun has been mostly spotless, but the solar irradiance intensity has been 1365 W/m^-2. This constitutes evidence on the existence of other solar "pulses" that we have not understood well:
> 
> The Inconstant Sun - NASA Science
> 
> Regarding the particularity of CO2 on the global warming, I don't see why to blame the CO2 of GW when its particular thermal characteristics show that the CO2 is not capable of producing any warming. The Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 0.00034 atm*m, wich limits the absorptivity-emissivity of the CO2 to only 0.00092 (dimensionless value), not the 0.2 given by the IPCC. The absorptivity-emissivity of CO2 is 0.00092 conduces to its total emittancy of barely 0.414 W/m^2, not the 5.35 W/m^2 given by the IPCC. If I was to blame any atmospheric gas of a GH effect, I would blame the Water Vapor, not the the coolant CO2.
> 
> the computer generated prediction models have always been weak. i would feel better if the scientists on the government dole were working to disprove this funky assertion.
> it's all in the book "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand.



If CO2 has no effect, how do explain that the world would be degrees colder, if it weren't in the atmosphere?  Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and even a small amount of extra heat would cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, where the GH effect of water would then amplify the amount of retained heat.  You're right about water, but it's not the cause of AGW, but a downstream effect amplifying the effects of humanly emitted GHGs.


----------



## washamericom

konradv said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was never a consensus, but they said there was... why?. without getting into the physics of co2, i'm going with the m.i.t.  guy.
> 
> CO2 Science
> 
> this is a little dry but worth reading. don't forget the argument is, you think it's a lock that global warming (when there is such a thing) is manmade, and i think we don't have enough evidence to verify and conclude your claim.
> 
> The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".
> 
> and:
> 
> Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
> 
> When we consider a short period, for example an 11 years period we can argue that the intensity of the solar irradiance is decreasing; however, if we consider a longer period, for example 400 years, we can see that the intensity of solar irradiance has not decreased. Some 400 years ago the solar irradiance intensity was 1365.5946 W/m^-2, while in 2000 the total solar irradiance intensity was 1366.6620 W/m^2. This year the Sun has been mostly spotless, but the solar irradiance intensity has been 1365 W/m^-2. This constitutes evidence on the existence of other solar "pulses" that we have not understood well:
> 
> The Inconstant Sun - NASA Science
> 
> Regarding the particularity of CO2 on the global warming, I don't see why to blame the CO2 of GW when its particular thermal characteristics show that the CO2 is not capable of producing any warming. The Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 0.00034 atm*m, wich limits the absorptivity-emissivity of the CO2 to only 0.00092 (dimensionless value), not the 0.2 given by the IPCC. The absorptivity-emissivity of CO2 is 0.00092 conduces to its total emittancy of barely 0.414 W/m^2, not the 5.35 W/m^2 given by the IPCC. If I was to blame any atmospheric gas of a GH effect, I would blame the Water Vapor, not the the coolant CO2.
> 
> the computer generated prediction models have always been weak. i would feel better if the scientists on the government dole were working to disprove this funky assertion.
> it's all in the book "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If CO2 has no effect, how do explain that the world would be degrees colder, if it weren't in the atmosphere?  Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We know CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and even a small amount of extra heat would cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, where the GH effect of water would then amplify the amount of retained heat.  You're right about water, but it's not the cause of AGW, but a downstream effect amplifying the effects of humanly emitted GHGs.
Click to expand...


co2 does have an effect, but could be offset by other multipliers. accordingly temperatures, have plateaued, as co 2 levels rise. the iceburgs still melt and break off, but that's caused by spring Earth tilt axi. maybe if we mow down the rest of the trees, that will heklp with co2. *there is no greenhouse* (2nd law theodynamics.) see "entropy".
as i said the physics professor at m.i.t. isn't part of gore's consensus, he thinks it's the sun.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

if this were in court, the burden of proof would fall on the proponents, the part of the scientific community that have failed miserably in their endeavor to proof. even if they hadn't falsified records and deceive the publik, and made and touted that movie filled with junk science, it still would be impossible to prove with the technology we have available today.
think of it this way, if "incontinent truth" was made today the "facts" presented would be different, and there is a reason for that.

thanks for playing... there'll be some lovely parting gifts at the store.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> The cycle has shifted, has it?   Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down?



In fair disclosure I need to say that I don't take Troofers, Birfers or Waaarmers seriously.  Those who cling to their absurd, cult-like fantasies are not rational. I view morons spouting on about anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels exactly the same as I do the guy who was spouting off on a brown dwarf causing the poles to shift.

They can be amusing to mock, but I'll never take them seriously.



> We know they trap energy so,



No, you don't "know" that." Your cult leaders have told that they do and you have uncritically accepted it.

A green house works on the principle of convection, a physical barrier causes certain wave lengths to be trapped inside.

Our atmosphere doesn't work that way at all. A green house modulates convection by mixing outside air into the trapped system.

Earth sits in the complete vacuum of space, there is no outside air to modulate convection.

Instead, temperature is modulated by two primary means, absorption in liquids - primarily the oceans, and the modulation of radiation through the troposphere.

The substance which accounts for 98% of this is - NO, not CO2, water vapor.  Carbon dioxide in fact contributes about 0.02% of modulus. This is ALL CO2, man made and natural. 

You see, the science ISN'T there, never has been. Virtually everything sold to a gullible public and a power hungry government is based on computer models.

Now, maybe these models are really good, and the facts support them.

Uh, well - not quite. In fact, the Mann models have a 100% failure rate - you read that right - they have not correctly predicted anything - ever. 

The bad news for you is that your cult is discredited. I don't view you as an opponent to be debated with, I view you as a loon to be mocked, no different than those screaming of brown dwarfs or Jews setting shape charges in the WTC.


----------



## konradv

washamericom said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was never a consensus, but they said there was... why?. without getting into the physics of co2, i'm going with the m.i.t.  guy.
> 
> CO2 Science
> 
> this is a little dry but worth reading. don't forget the argument is, you think it's a lock that global warming (when there is such a thing) is manmade, and i think we don't have enough evidence to verify and conclude your claim.
> 
> The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".
> 
> and:
> 
> Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
> 
> When we consider a short period, for example an 11 years period we can argue that the intensity of the solar irradiance is decreasing; however, if we consider a longer period, for example 400 years, we can see that the intensity of solar irradiance has not decreased. Some 400 years ago the solar irradiance intensity was 1365.5946 W/m^-2, while in 2000 the total solar irradiance intensity was 1366.6620 W/m^2. This year the Sun has been mostly spotless, but the solar irradiance intensity has been 1365 W/m^-2. This constitutes evidence on the existence of other solar "pulses" that we have not understood well:
> 
> The Inconstant Sun - NASA Science
> 
> Regarding the particularity of CO2 on the global warming, I don't see why to blame the CO2 of GW when its particular thermal characteristics show that the CO2 is not capable of producing any warming. The Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 0.00034 atm*m, wich limits the absorptivity-emissivity of the CO2 to only 0.00092 (dimensionless value), not the 0.2 given by the IPCC. The absorptivity-emissivity of CO2 is 0.00092 conduces to its total emittancy of barely 0.414 W/m^2, not the 5.35 W/m^2 given by the IPCC. If I was to blame any atmospheric gas of a GH effect, I would blame the Water Vapor, not the the coolant CO2.
> 
> the computer generated prediction models have always been weak. i would feel better if the scientists on the government dole were working to disprove this funky assertion.
> it's all in the book "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If CO2 has no effect, how do explain that the world would be degrees colder, if it weren't in the atmosphere?  Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We know CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and even a small amount of extra heat would cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, where the GH effect of water would then amplify the amount of retained heat.  You're right about water, but it's not the cause of AGW, but a downstream effect amplifying the effects of humanly emitted GHGs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> co2 does have an effect, but could be offset by other multipliers. accordingly temperatures, have plateaued, as co 2 levels rise. the iceburgs still melt and break off, but that's caused by spring Earth tilt axi. maybe if we mow down the rest of the trees, that will heklp with co2. *there is no greenhouse* (2nd law theodynamics.) see "entropy".
> as i said the physic professor at m.i.t. isn't part of gore's consensus, he thinks it's the sun.
> Second Law of Thermodynamics
Click to expand...


What happens when those "multipliers" no longer offset the effect of CO2?  You have to realize there ARE natural cycles and what you're calling a lack of effect of CO2 is in reality those other factors having an influence.  What happens when they reverse?  You're analysis treats those factors as if they only serve to depress the effects of CO2, when they actually would work to reinforce it, when the cycles reverse.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cycle has shifted, has it?   Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fair disclosure I need to say that I don't take Troofers, Birfers or Waaarmers seriously.  Those who cling to their absurd, cult-like fantasies are not rational. I view morons spouting on about anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels exactly the same as I do the guy who was spouting off on a brown dwarf causing the poles to shift.
> 
> They can be amusing to mock, but I'll never take them seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know they trap energy so,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> No, you don't "know" that." Your cult leaders have told that they do and you have uncritically accepted it.*
> A green house works on the principle of convection, a physical barrier causes certain wave lengths to be trapped inside.
> 
> Our atmosphere doesn't work that way at all. A green house modulates convection by mixing outside air into the trapped system.
> 
> Earth sits in the complete vacuum of space, there is no outside air to modulate convection.
> 
> Instead, temperature is modulated by two primary means, absorption in liquids - primarily the oceans, and the modulation of radiation through the troposphere.
> 
> The substance which accounts for 98% of this is - NO, not CO2, water vapor.  Carbon dioxide in fact contributes about 0.02% of modulus. This is ALL CO2, man made and natural.
> 
> You see, the science ISN'T there, never has been. Virtually everything sold to a gullible public and a power hungry government is based on computer models.
> 
> Now, maybe these models are really good, and the facts support them.
> 
> Uh, well - not quite. In fact, the Mann models have a 100% failure rate - you read that right - they have not correctly predicted anything - ever.
> 
> The bad news for you is that your cult is discredited. I don't view you as an opponent to be debated with, I view you as a loon to be mocked, no different than those screaming of brown dwarfs or Jews setting shape charges in the WTC.
Click to expand...


You're the one that's in a cult.  One that apparently has you believing that long-standing scientific knowledge is bunk.  I'm going by the science and I KNOW that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, because I can prove it in a spectrophotometer.  It's actually a VERY TRIVIAL experiment and easy to do.  Any wonder I have trouble believing anything a denier says, when simple, basic truths are swept under the rug as if they didn't exist?


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> You're the one that's in a cult.



ROFL

Of course, the infidels who eschew the holy truth are blind and in a cult of disbelief..



> One that apparently has you believing that long-standing scientific knowledge is bunk.



Your religion defies scientific knowledge.

There is nothing scientific about Mann or Jones. 



> I'm going by the science and I KNOW that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, because I can prove it in a spectrophotometer.



And?

I already pointed out that CO2 accounts for .02% of the modulation of radiation.

For extra credit (though it may get you ex-communicated) explain why the lack of uniform global temperatures (it's warmer in the tropics than at the poles) dispels the myth of actual convection. 

How do you think that makes your silly little cult true?


----------



## Big Fitz

Oops!  This thread has devolved into Chicken Little Noodledom.  Time to break out the lolcats to illustrate the new stupidity this thread has found.


----------



## washamericom

konradv said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> If CO2 has no effect, how do explain that the world would be degrees colder, if it weren't in the atmosphere?  Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We know CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and even a small amount of extra heat would cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, where the GH effect of water would then amplify the amount of retained heat.  You're right about water, but it's not the cause of AGW, but a downstream effect amplifying the effects of humanly emitted GHGs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> co2 does have an effect, but could be offset by other multipliers. accordingly temperatures, have plateaued, as co 2 levels rise. the iceburgs still melt and break off, but that's caused by spring Earth tilt axi. maybe if we mow down the rest of the trees, that will heklp with co2. *there is no greenhouse* (2nd law theodynamics.) see "entropy".
> as i said the physic professor at m.i.t. isn't part of gore's consensus, he thinks it's the sun.
> Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happens when those "multipliers" no longer offset the effect of CO2?  You have to realize there ARE natural cycles and what you're calling a lack of effect of CO2 is in reality those other factors having an influence.  What happens when they reverse?  You're analysis treats those factors as if they only serve to depress the effects of CO2, when they actually would work to reinforce it, when the cycles reverse.
Click to expand...


okay.. you win, i guess i'll try the mocking thing for awhile. so... did you read the book or see the movie yet?


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that's in a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Of course, the infidels who eschew the holy truth are blind and in a cult of disbelief..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One that apparently has you believing that long-standing scientific knowledge is bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your religion defies scientific knowledge.
> 
> There is nothing scientific about Mann or Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going by the science and I KNOW that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, because I can prove it in a spectrophotometer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> I already pointed out that CO2 accounts for .02% of the modulation of radiation.
> 
> For extra credit (though it may get you ex-communicated) explain why the lack of uniform global temperatures (it's warmer in the tropics than at the poles) dispels the myth of actual convection.
> 
> How do you think that makes your silly little cult true?
Click to expand...


So it's a relgion now?  That's the fall back position of the truly desperate!!!  You have no scientific basis for what you're saying except to regurgitate what you've heard.  You can save your question, since you never satisfactorily answered mine.  What happens if CO2 keeps going up and absorbs more and more radiation?  Where would that energy go, since only 50% is likely to be re-emitted into space?   Logically the other half would have to go towards warming the earth.


----------



## konradv

washamericom said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> co2 does have an effect, but could be offset by other multipliers. accordingly temperatures, have plateaued, as co 2 levels rise. the iceburgs still melt and break off, but that's caused by spring Earth tilt axi. maybe if we mow down the rest of the trees, that will heklp with co2. *there is no greenhouse* (2nd law theodynamics.) see "entropy".
> as i said the physic professor at m.i.t. isn't part of gore's consensus, he thinks it's the sun.
> Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happens when those "multipliers" no longer offset the effect of CO2?  You have to realize there ARE natural cycles and what you're calling a lack of effect of CO2 is in reality those other factors having an influence.  What happens when they reverse?  You're analysis treats those factors as if they only serve to depress the effects of CO2, when they actually would work to reinforce it, when the cycles reverse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> okay.. you win, *i guess i'll try the mocking thing for awhile.* so... did you read the book or see the movie yet?
Click to expand...


Pretty much all you've got, since neither science nor logic are in your corner.  The denier side is all political with just enough science thrown in to confuse rather than elucidate.


----------



## Big Fitz

Konradv... can't win in the environmental forum, so he drags is whacko cult faith into other threads to 'win' there.

Come on now... scream 'Victory is Mine' like a good little Stewie.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> So it's a relgion now?



It's never been anything other than a religion.



> You have no scientific basis for what you're saying except to regurgitate what you've heard.



Irony - it's what makes you loons fun to mock.



> You can save your question,



Couldn't find a verse to respond, huh?



> What happens if CO2 keeps going up and absorbs more and more radiation?



What happens if the watermelon keeps growing and becomes bigger than the sun?

Your question reveals the utter lack of comprehension you have of the subject.

Say, which absorbs more infrared energy, water vapor or CO2 based on PPM? Check that spectrograph... 

ROFL

If warmists could pass even third grade science, they would be forced to reject their silly religion.


----------



## Big Fitz

If it gets cold:  Global warming
If it gets hot: Global warming
If it rains: Global warming
If it is dry: Global warming

But in all cases... it's Man's Fault!


----------



## Uncensored2008

washamericom said:


> okay.. you win, i guess i'll try the mocking thing for awhile. so... did you read the book or see the movie yet?



It's the only reasonable course.

You'll no more get a reasoned or rational discussion out of this guy on his religion than you will from eots on the facts of 9/11.

This is his faith, reason and facts will not penetrate.


----------



## washamericom

What happens if the watermelon keeps growing and becomes bigger than the sun?


i'm pretty sure that it would effect the gravitational _manmade_ (because man planted the watermellon seed and watered it) cause to retrograde, upsetting the delicate balance of the moon's orbit and send it careening into the earth.... thereby causing...... wait for it...  real global warming !  
more new things to worry about...thanks alot man, now i have that hanging over my head (so to speak)


----------



## Toro

So, if I'm reading this right, Ayn Rand believed or didn't believe in global warming.

Whodathunk?


----------



## washamericom

Toro said:


> So, if I'm reading this right, Ayn Rand believed or didn't believe in global warming.
> 
> Whodathunk?



yes, it's true


----------



## MaggieMae

Uncensored2008 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it isn't junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't type that with a straight face.
> 
> AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the ice melt isn't going to have such dramatic effects as portrayed in Inconvenient Truth, but there is no denying that the arctic ice masses are melting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WERE melting.
> 
> The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.
> 
> Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.
> 
> Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.
> 
> Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.
Click to expand...


How, exactly? How have you paid more in taxes? Nobody's forcing you to go green.

Good grief, you people are _soooooo_ gullible.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by MaggieMae
> The founders didn't mean the Republican PARTY, a/k/a the GOP. At the time of the signing of The Constitution, there were only two parties: The Federalists and (ironically) the Democratic-Republican Party! It wasn't until early in the 20th Century that the Democrats and Republicans split into the two parties we now know. Geesh--do some homework.
> 
> 
> 
> let's have a quick look at the bulls supper. you speak in sweeping generalities and without accurate substance, then you admonish others for not seeing the liberal light. did you read the book? there is a parallel between the government in the novel and the type of overreaching government we have today, only we'll have none of it.
> with respect to global warming and cap and trade, they are stepping stones to a "centralized world government" (ad hoc). let me ask you this, why would, by your own admission, gore need to_ embellish_ the facts to sell his theory ?. why is so much wrong about the movie. why has it spiraled into scandal. why did he let the animated polar bear die, yet he saved the frog.
> the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere is a created myth, it would be like finding the average # in the new york phonebook, or the average colour. the very name _greenhouse effect_ is a misnomer, it implies that there is a solid barrier between us and space. the average temp of 95 or so % of the earth's mass is 1000 degrees centegrade, and carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring and much needed gas is less than a third of 1 percent of the "air". the prediction models are weak.
> there is no evidence that "global warming" is caused by man, and when asked, of a _real _scientist, a physics professor at MIT, what is the cause of global warming??  he said "the sun"....
> so it all ties together magpie, scientific theory, new world order, sweeping generalities and wrongs facts, like the ones above posted by you, i think, ... and i apologise if i'm wrong.
> your consensus is wrong, and lincoln really was the first republican, but not in the early 1900's. other than that mrs lincoln, how did you like the play.



Another one who takes gigantic leaps from one subject to another. I may have missed the actual timeframe for the separation of political parties, so sue me. As for global warming, I trust my facts and you trust yours. So it's a standoff. Only time will tell who is right.


----------



## MaggieMae

hipeter924 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> no offense maggie but you don't leave for yourself much wiggle room in that dept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I not backed up what I say? This thread is loaded with links I posted. You can call it bullshit if you want, but I can prove what the bull ate for dinner anyway.
> 
> Samson has a personal vendetta against me. I stripped him of his bragging rights one day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he has a vendetta against anyone that thinks critically, doesn't believe in propaganda, and tries to learn the truth.
Click to expand...


Sure... Whatevah...


----------



## Maple

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



I have read the book, it was required reading in a course I was taking, a conservative think tank course. What I find interesting is that Anne had that much insight to what is happening now, but then I read she was a child in Soviet Russia and she saw it from a young age. I agree that if enough people see this movie or read her book, it will definitely be a game changer. I want it shown everywhere. BTW- the French at that time, would not allow her book to be printed in the French language as they were socialists.


----------



## MaggieMae

washamericom said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't type that with a straight face.
> 
> AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.
> 
> 
> 
> WERE melting.
> 
> The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.
> 
> Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.
> 
> Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.
> 
> Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cycle has shifted, has it?   Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down?  We know they trap energy so, if there indeed has been a shift, they should be going down, right?  How about showing us THAT data?  I don't really believe you know much about the subject, except what's been spoon-fed to you by the talking heads.  A good way of telling one's level of knowledge is by what's discussed.  Those who know the subject discuss the data.  Those who don't, discuss Gore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have you read the book ?? we have to ask now cause people haven't been reading the book. do you really still belive in "global warming" cause by man ?
Click to expand...


I don't think a planet can have this many humans added to it, each one having to have the latest in industrial and scientific technology to support its existence, without it having a major effect on the environmental structure of Planet Earth itself. To me, it's a no-brainer.






World population from 1800 to 2100, based on UN 2004 projections
 (red, orange, green) and US Census Bureau historical estimates


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> Konradv... can't win in the environmental forum, so he drags is whacko cult faith into other threads to 'win' there.
> 
> Come on now... scream 'Victory is Mine' like a good little Stewie.



Unlike the ones who post their own *proof* that it's junk science, huh?


----------



## MaggieMae

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's a relgion now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been anything other than a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no scientific basis for what you're saying except to regurgitate what you've heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irony - it's what makes you loons fun to mock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can save your question,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't find a verse to respond, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happens if CO2 keeps going up and absorbs more and more radiation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happens if the watermelon keeps growing and becomes bigger than the sun?
> 
> Your question reveals the utter lack of comprehension you have of the subject.
> 
> Say, which absorbs more infrared energy, water vapor or CO2 based on PPM? Check that spectrograph...
> 
> ROFL
> 
> If warmists could pass even third grade science, they would be forced to reject their silly religion.
Click to expand...


Mock away. It's not going to change MY mind, since I choose to believe the thousands of scientists, NOAA, and their computer models over any of your so-called *proof*. Did you ever ask yourself what the fate of earth would really be if you're actually wrong? The global warming thing is simply a topic that should be dealt with in a PROactive manner, just in case all those computer models *are* correct.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Konradv... can't win in the environmental forum, so he drags is whacko cult faith into other threads to 'win' there.
> 
> Come on now... scream 'Victory is Mine' like a good little Stewie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike the ones who post their own *proof* that it's junk science, huh?
Click to expand...

Obviously you've not read the decimation of his points in the environmental forum.  Please, have fun looking it up.  I've neither the time nor inclination to go posting links for you.  I've pointed you in the right direction and that's more than enough.


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Konradv... can't win in the environmental forum, so he drags is whacko cult faith into other threads to 'win' there.
> 
> Come on now... scream 'Victory is Mine' like a good little Stewie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike the ones who post their own *proof* that it's junk science, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you've not read the decimation of his points in the environmental forum.  Please, have fun looking it up.  I've neither the time nor inclination to go posting links for you.  I've pointed you in the right direction and that's more than enough.
Click to expand...


If you're talking about Al Gore's book, yes, there are controversial points. If you're talking about global warming in general, I stand by my position.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike the ones who post their own *proof* that it's junk science, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you've not read the decimation of his points in the environmental forum.  Please, have fun looking it up.  I've neither the time nor inclination to go posting links for you.  I've pointed you in the right direction and that's more than enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're talking about Al Gore's book, yes, there are controversial points. If you're talking about global warming in general, I stand by my position.
Click to expand...

yeah yeah... okay.


----------



## editec

Toro said:


> So, if I'm reading this right, Ayn Rand believed or didn't believe in global warming.
> 
> Whodathunk?


 
I assumed that the person who noted that was being sarcastic.

At least I hope that was his intent.


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you've not read the decimation of his points in the environmental forum.  Please, have fun looking it up.  I've neither the time nor inclination to go posting links for you.  I've pointed you in the right direction and that's more than enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about Al Gore's book, yes, there are controversial points. If you're talking about global warming in general, I stand by my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah yeah... okay.
Click to expand...


Cute, but "An Inconvenient Truth" *isn't* the bible that I rely on.


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about Al Gore's book, yes, there are controversial points. If you're talking about global warming in general, I stand by my position.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah yeah... okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute, but "An Inconvenient Truth" *isn't* the bible that I rely on.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't trust anything from Hansen or Mann or the IPCC.  

Climategate and admissions made by the head of the IPCC have proven those data sets are corrupted.


----------



## MaggieMae

Big Fitz said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah yeah... okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute, but "An Inconvenient Truth" *isn't* the bible that I rely on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as you don't trust anything from Hansen or Mann or the IPCC.
> 
> Climategate and admissions made by the head of the IPCC have proven those data sets are corrupted.
Click to expand...


You mean the arctic ice shelfs aren't melting? That Italy and Switzerland won't be redrawing their boundaries because the Alps are melting? Oh whew...


----------



## washamericom

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute, but "An Inconvenient Truth" *isn't* the bible that I rely on.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you don't trust anything from Hansen or Mann or the IPCC.
> 
> Climategate and admissions made by the head of the IPCC have proven those data sets are corrupted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the arctic ice shelfs aren't melting? That Italy and Switzerland won't be redrawing their boundaries because the Alps are melting? Oh whew...
Click to expand...


the alps.... are melting.....
so begins the next age of global warming.... lovely


----------



## Big Fitz

MaggieMae said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute, but "An Inconvenient Truth" *isn't* the bible that I rely on.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you don't trust anything from Hansen or Mann or the IPCC.
> 
> Climategate and admissions made by the head of the IPCC have proven those data sets are corrupted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the arctic ice shelfs aren't melting? That Italy and Switzerland won't be redrawing their boundaries because the Alps are melting? Oh whew...
Click to expand...

Yeah, go find some of Westwall's threads on the glaciers to educate yourself.  He's done stellar work debunking the global receding icepack.


----------



## Uncensored2008

MaggieMae said:


> How, exactly? How have you paid more in taxes? Nobody's forcing you to go green.
> 
> Good grief, you people are _soooooo_ gullible.



You know, I never invested a dime with Bernie Madoff. I guess, based on your complete lack of logic and reason, he should have been blameless, since he didn't force me to invest....


----------



## Uncensored2008

MaggieMae said:


> I don't think a planet can have this many humans added to it, each one having to have the latest in industrial and scientific technology to support its existence, without it having a major effect on the environmental structure of Planet Earth itself. To me, it's a no-brainer.



And we finally get to the truth of it, the left is ultimately a death cult.

Blow all the smoke and bullshit away and the truth of the agenda is revealed, the lust for mass murder, the desire to slaughter your fellow humans.

In the best of Rand's work, she wrote "The most insidious thing about the Soviet system was not that they would kill people, but that they denied life to we, the living." (From "We, the Living.")

The ultimate truth of the left is hatred for life, all else is simply a veneer to cover the fact that the goal of the left is to slaughter as many humans as possible.


----------



## MaggieMae

Uncensored2008 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> How, exactly? How have you paid more in taxes? Nobody's forcing you to go green.
> 
> Good grief, you people are _soooooo_ gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I never invested a dime with Bernie Madoff. I guess, based on your complete lack of logic and reason, he should have been blameless, since he didn't force me to invest....
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

MaggieMae said:


>



You really are as stupid as a pile of bricks, aren't you?


----------



## washamericom

Uncensored2008 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think a planet can have this many humans added to it, each one having to have the latest in industrial and scientific technology to support its existence, without it having a major effect on the environmental structure of Planet Earth itself. To me, it's a no-brainer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we finally get to the truth of it, the left is ultimately a death cult.
> 
> Blow all the smoke and bullshit away and the truth of the agenda is revealed, the lust for mass murder, the desire to slaughter your fellow humans.
> 
> In the best of Rand's work, she wrote "The most insidious thing about the Soviet system was not that they would kill people, but that they denied life to we, the living." (From "We, the Living.")
> 
> The ultimate truth of the left is hatred for life, all else is simply a veneer to cover the fact that the goal of the left is to slaughter as many humans as possible.
Click to expand...


soylent green again....



if we do this and tap the earth for energy, for fun, and to cool us off, we should be fine.

and.. from the hit michael moore movie *  farrakhan 911 (actually it was bowling for concubines)* 

 "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS".... same guy, what a coincidence...

   apparently , according to some people who were there, sloppy filmmaker michael moore did a little fancy cutting to change the meaning of the events. (deceitful) moore has a long record of lying about the truth in his movies. (michael moore hates america)


----------



## Uncensored2008

MaggieMae said:


> Mock away. It's not going to change MY mind,



No more than an expose of L. Ron Hubbard will change the mind of Tom Cruise.



> since I choose to believe the thousands of scientists,



You choose to believe your priests and mullahs and ignore tens of thousands of scientists who tell you that science doesn't involve a conclusion that we force theories to adapt to.



> Did you ever ask yourself what the fate of earth would really be if you're actually wrong?



Oh my allah, I hadn't thought of that.

So what your saying is that if we DON'T sacrifice our virgin daughters to the volcano god, the anger of Giai will be so great that she will not only destroy me, but the entire globe?

Well, it's so original that I could hardly NOT believe it....


----------



## Uncensored2008

MaggieMae said:


> If you're talking about Al Gore's book, yes, there are controversial points. If you're talking about global warming in general, I stand by my position.



You stand by your position because you're faithful to your party, not because you have any knowledge of the subject.

It's simply dogma that you accept uncritically.


----------



## washamericom

editec said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I'm reading this right, Ayn Rand believed or didn't believe in global warming.
> 
> Whodathunk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assumed that the person who noted that was being sarcastic.
> 
> At least I hope that was his intent.
Click to expand...


she knew about cap and trade.


----------



## Maple

Atlas Shrugged Movie - Atlas Shrugged Scene - Dagny Taggart Confronts the Union


----------



## washamericom

thanks maple, i too joined the atlas shrugged foundation society.

it's bloody awesome to finally see these characters come to life on the big screen. 

i stand by my original post, that this movie, and rand's philosophy, will not only dramatically change the face of american politics, it will challenge the free world, and renew the vitality, of those willing to work long and hard, to make their lives, and the lives of those around them better.

not only that, but the brilliance of objectivism and free commerce, as prescribed by our own founding fathers, will be instrumental in defeating the president of obama, harry reid, and the long and slow painful march towards european styled socialism, world government, and intrusion into peoples' private lives.

and so it begins... round three... ding !

1 Major characters 
1.1 Dagny Taggart 
1.2 John Galt 
1.3 Ragnar Danneskjöld 
1.4 Francisco d'Anconia 
1.5 Dr. Floyd Ferris 
1.6 Wesley Mouch 
1.7 Henry "Hank" Rearden 
1.8 Lillian Rearden 
1.9 James Taggart 
1.10 Dr. Robert Stadler

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/?gclid=CPavu5qq_KcCFYxd5QodrDtqrA


----------



## Maple

washamericom said:


> thanks maple, i too joined the atlas shrugged foundation society.
> 
> it's bloody awesome to finally see these characters come to life on the big screen.
> 
> i stand by my original post, that this movie, and rand's philosophy, will not only dramatically change the face of american politics, it will challenge the free world, and renew the vitality, of those willing to work long and hard, to make their lives, and the lives of those around them better.
> 
> not only that, but the brilliance of objectivism and free commerce, as prescribed by our own founding fathers, will be instrumental in defeating the president of obama, harry reid, and the long and slow painful march towards european styled socialism, world government, and intrusion into peoples' private lives.
> 
> and so it begins... round three... ding !
> 
> 1 Major characters
> 1.1 Dagny Taggart
> 1.2 John Galt
> 1.3 Ragnar Danneskjöld
> 1.4 Francisco d'Anconia
> 1.5 Dr. Floyd Ferris
> 1.6 Wesley Mouch
> 1.7 Henry "Hank" Rearden
> 1.8 Lillian Rearden  it
> 1.9 James Taggart
> 1.10 Dr. Robert Stadler
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Movie - The Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site



I can not wait to see this movie, already there is a demand in my area for advanced ticket purchases. It has the potential to be a major game changer in this nation, it's a must see for everyone.


----------



## Maple

Maple said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks maple, i too joined the atlas shrugged foundation society.
> 
> it's bloody awesome to finally see these characters come to life on the big screen.
> 
> i stand by my original post, that this movie, and rand's philosophy, will not only dramatically change the face of american politics, it will challenge the free world, and renew the vitality, of those willing to work long and hard, to make their lives, and the lives of those around them better.
> 
> not only that, but the brilliance of objectivism and free commerce, as prescribed by our own founding fathers, will be instrumental in defeating the president of obama, harry reid, and the long and slow painful march towards european styled socialism, world government, and intrusion into peoples' private lives.
> 
> and so it begins... round three... ding !
> 
> 1 Major characters
> 1.1 Dagny Taggart
> 1.2 John Galt
> 1.3 Ragnar Danneskjöld
> 1.4 Francisco d'Anconia
> 1.5 Dr. Floyd Ferris
> 1.6 Wesley Mouch
> 1.7 Henry "Hank" Rearden
> 1.8 Lillian Rearden  it
> 1.9 James Taggart
> 1.10 Dr. Robert Stadler
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Movie - The Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can not wait to see this movie, already there is a demand in my area for advanced ticket purchases. It has the potential to be a major game changer in this nation, it's a must see for everyone.
Click to expand...


It is a true depiction of socialism verses capitalism, the consequences of over-regulation on industry, too much government involvement," spreading the wealth," philosophy and the total negative impact it has on society as a whole. Socialism is nothing more than shared POVERTY.


----------



## washamericom

Maple said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks maple, i too joined the atlas shrugged foundation society.
> 
> it's bloody awesome to finally see these characters come to life on the big screen.
> 
> i stand by my original post, that this movie, and rand's philosophy, will not only dramatically change the face of american politics, it will challenge the free world, and renew the vitality, of those willing to work long and hard, to make their lives, and the lives of those around them better.
> 
> not only that, but the brilliance of objectivism and free commerce, as prescribed by our own founding fathers, will be instrumental in defeating the president of obama, harry reid, and the long and slow painful march towards european styled socialism, world government, and intrusion into peoples' private lives.
> 
> and so it begins... round three... ding !
> 
> 1 Major characters
> 1.1 Dagny Taggart
> 1.2 John Galt
> 1.3 Ragnar Danneskjöld
> 1.4 Francisco d'Anconia
> 1.5 Dr. Floyd Ferris
> 1.6 Wesley Mouch
> 1.7 Henry "Hank" Rearden
> 1.8 Lillian Rearden  it
> 1.9 James Taggart
> 1.10 Dr. Robert Stadler
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Movie - The Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can not wait to see this movie, already there is a demand in my area for advanced ticket purchases. It has the potential to be a major game changer in this nation, it's a must see for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a true depiction of socialism verses capitalism, the consequences of over-regulation on industry, too much government involvement," spreading the wealth," philosophy and the total negative impact it has on society as a whole. Socialism is nothing more than shared POVERTY.
Click to expand...


you are wise maple, i admire your enthusiasm.

Enthusiasm is excitement with inspiration, motivation, and a pinch of creativity.


----------



## Maple

washamericom said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can not wait to see this movie, already there is a demand in my area for advanced ticket purchases. It has the potential to be a major game changer in this nation, it's a must see for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a true depiction of socialism verses capitalism, the consequences of over-regulation on industry, too much government involvement," spreading the wealth," philosophy and the total negative impact it has on society as a whole. Socialism is nothing more than shared POVERTY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are wise maple, i admire your enthusiasm.
> 
> Enthusiasm is excitement with inspiration, motivation, and a pinch of creativity.
Click to expand...


If you google " Atlas Shrugged," you can see the areas of the country that this will be shown in and order advance tickets.


----------



## washamericom

Maple said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a true depiction of socialism verses capitalism, the consequences of over-regulation on industry, too much government involvement," spreading the wealth," philosophy and the total negative impact it has on society as a whole. Socialism is nothing more than shared POVERTY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are wise maple, i admire your enthusiasm.
> 
> &#8220;Enthusiasm is excitement with inspiration, motivation, and a pinch of creativity.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you google " Atlas Shrugged," you can see the areas of the country that this will be shown in and order advance tickets.
Click to expand...




thanks for the tip... incidentally, here's a piece i wrote this morning for my website 
.... thought you might enjoy. cheers...

                                                       Atlas Tingled.

                                                            by Johnson Andrews

                                                This is the time to rise up and seize the opportunity to be more like europe. The declaration of independence and the constitution were fine ideas for the time, but the founding fathers would want us to evolve and change those basic principles as the world grows. They had no way of predicting the changing needs of the people, as population grows. They did not know there would be airlines and the internet, sports arenas and billion dollar presidential campaigns.

            They would want for the very richest people to be made to share their succuss with those less able. Spreading the wealth around to make things more fair, there could be a new "national standard"  as a vehicle to amend to the now (silly) out dated constitution of way back then. 

          Business, should carry the burden of free healthcare education and basic living expenses for everybody, not just those who want to work. Jobs should be provided for those who wish to work, but no one should have to worry if they have stopped looking. It's rough out there, and the fair thing to do is support people while they decide what they want to do.

        Since America would no longer need to set an example for liberty, we would cut the military by half and spend the money on more social programs (switzerland), like art, music and exploring. We would protect our borders.

          People could retire at fifty, to write their memoirs and have fun with their grandchildren. The government would provide appropriate guidelines for retirement income and services.
                 Vacation would replace overtime, even people with their own small businesses wouldn't be allowed to work more than thity-five hours per week.

                 The government knows better what people should eat, drink, smoke, and how to raise their kids. There would be a great new expansion of bureaucratic agencies, to help people in their homes, to make difficult decisions about politics and religion, what to drive.

               These "quasi" mandatory counseling "home sessions", will give many new government social managers, the ability have a regular look at citizens homes, and will allow them to keep accurate digital records of the progress each family makes, and for the future. 
              This era will usher in much needed regulation of corporations. Finally, a "government authority" will grant appropriate allowance of energy consumption, discharge of greenhouse gas, and reasonable allocation of "profits" made from the labor of the workers. Each worker own an equal share of the company for which they work. Government standards will help to homoginize the different cultures to simplfy efficiency in providing for the people. 

 The time is now to seek the ways of european societies. They have shown through the years that socialist values are inevitable here and should be embrace them before we destroy ourselves. We have shown over and over that the bigger the government, the better things are. Panels and Unions and Commissions are the best suited to tell our needs, and the most fair way to spread the wealth.  No longer should someone be considered "special",  just because they have invented or discovered something great. These things of importance belong to all of us. 

           Atlas shrugged ? Maybe, a long, long time ago. But now, my friends, a tingle runs up his leg, because he no longer has to worry about providing for his (her) family, if he doesn't want to. Everything will be just fine, because he knows, as long as his government survives, and stays in the business of taxation, it will provide for their every need. happy april fools everyone.


----------



## Toro

washamericom said:


> The declaration of independence and the constitution were fine ideas for the time, but the founding fathers would want us to evolve and change those basic principles as the world grows. ...
> 
> They would want for the very richest people to be made to share their succuss with those less able.



Yes, if the founding fathers were alive today, they'd want that.


Oh, and to own slaves too.


----------



## washamericom

Toro said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> The declaration of independence and the constitution were fine ideas for the time, but the founding fathers would want us to evolve and change those basic principles as the world grows. ...
> 
> They would want for the very richest people to be made to share their succuss with those less able.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if the founding fathers were alive today, they'd want that.
> 
> 
> Oh, and to own slaves too.
Click to expand...



what do you mean, strphen harper is a communist ? i heard fatboy michael moore say last night that canada didn't ever have any trouble. he also said that fascist defined is corporations in bed with the government, like g e and obama. this new war is ok, because it's so different.

tubby's got a new movie coming out that has some truth in it, rosanne said she needs tons o fun to tell her what to do (think). she said that jumbo was always right all the time.
shamu thanked her. they both wore black and looked like space. so we need more government control.


----------



## washamericom

as the president fails and falls in the polls.

STRIKERS,

This is it. The final week, Next week... ATLAS arrives! And... with one final push... hopefully to a theater near you.

Under attack
Predictably, our antagonists are now out in force. Not satisfied with simply taking over the comments at YouTube on the new Dagny clip, they're now making their displeasure more and more known at the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie site. Be forewarned, it ain't pretty.

BUT, a ray of hope in the distance...

Who is John Galt?
Check out this GREAT new "Who is John Galt" caught in the wild!


That "Who is John Galt?" looks suspiciously like the 8.5"x11" flyer found on our promotional assets page! Boy oh boy... if this type of thing started to spread... I mean... "Who is John Galt?" flyers showing up EVERYWHERE... that'd be... well... that'd just be... a LOT of "Who is John Galt?" flyers EVERYWHERE.

If you spot'em in the wild, send the pics to us at AtlasShruggedMovie@gmail.com so we can feature them on facebook.

Demand Atlas to your Town
Atlas not playing in a theater near you yet? Have you "Demanded Atlas?" If not, you need to hurry. This is it. Tell us where you are: Atlas Shrugged Movie - Demand *U.S. only for now. Outside U.S. COMING SOON.

"I am John Galt."
Over 30,000 views and 400 entries so far. Wow. Have you jumped in yet and made your "I am John Galt." video? Hurry, April 15th is it. Grab your camera, get it front of it, say "I am John Galt." and be part of Atlas Shrugged History.

HERO Alert: Cadet Third Class Heather M. Udell
We have a new HERO in the house. Her name is Heather and... Heather jumps out of airplanes. We couldn't be more proud to have Heather as part of our "I am John Galt!" campaign. Stop by Heather's YouTube channel, check out her "I am John Galt!" entry and... watch her jump out of a plane. SERIOUSLY.

Make noise
This is really it gang. If there was ever a time to make some noise, this is it. Get out there and tell the world. Atlas is coming.


----------



## Toro

washamericom said:


> what do you mean, strphen harper is a communist ? i heard fatboy michael moore say last night that canada didn't ever have any trouble.



It's true.  Canada never has any trouble.  Did you see Bowling for Columnbine?  Remember that scene when Michael Moore opened doors in Toronto and found that "people don't lock their front doors in Canada."  Well, THAT IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY TRUE!  Most Canadians don't lock their front doors.  Heck, most front doors in Canada don't even have locks!  Same with cars too.  Cars made in Canada for Canadians are made _without locks_.  All the locks we have in the country are made for Americans who go up to live there.

True story.


----------



## Toro

Who is John Galt?

According to the IMBd, John Galt is "Paul Johansson."

So just remember when you read the book, and Rand rhetorically asks "Who is John Galt?" you can reply "It's Paul Johansson."


----------



## jillian

Ah... sweet irony:



> The John Galt Corporation was multiply indicted by a grand jury in 2008 for manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and reckless endangerment after the death of two New York City firemen during the dismantling of the Deutsche Bank Building in consequence of the September 11 attacks of 2001



John Galt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## washamericom

Toro said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean, strphen harper is a communist ? i heard fatboy michael moore say last night that canada didn't ever have any trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true.  Canada never has any trouble.  Did you see Bowling for Columnbine?  Remember that scene when Michael Moore opened doors in Toronto and found that "people don't lock their front doors in Canada."  Well, THAT IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY TRUE!  Most Canadians don't lock their front doors.  Heck, most front doors in Canada don't even have locks!  Same with cars too.  Cars made in Canada for Canadians are made _without locks_.  All the locks we have in the country are made for Americans who go up to live there.
> 
> True story.
Click to expand...



if i lived in canada and michael moore walked into my house, the crime rate would go right up.
anyway check out michael more hates america, pretty funny, no funny splicing.


----------



## LostAmerican




----------



## editec

Note that Ayn Rand's egoism was so profoundly crippling that she feared Wm F. Buckley, arguably the smartest modern conservative in our lifetimes?

The woman is a fraud, and her pilosophy was/is _evil._

Even Buckley could see that.

But of course, I'm mostly writing to a board of conservatives who bearly know who Buckley is, aren't I?

Clueless tools.


----------



## Seawytch

I just wonder how many tea baggie heads will explode when they find out that Atlas Shrugged is about high speed rail...


----------



## washamericom

editec said:


> Note that Ayn Rand's egoism was so profoundly crippling that she feared Wm F. Buckley, arguably the smartest modern conservative in our lifetimes?
> 
> The woman is a fraud, and her pilosophy was/is _evil._
> 
> Even Buckley could see that.
> 
> But of course, I'm mostly writing to a board of conservatives who bearly know who Buckley is, aren't I?
> 
> Clueless tools.



speaking of clueless tools, obama and the socialist brigade are having a private showing of "atlas shrugged part 1" at the whitehouse, too bad he won't be there long enough to see parts two and three. obama has referenced rand's work many times in his flowery campaign speeches. 

buckley was the most boring person on the planet. 
buckley is to us, what rev wright, or bill ayers are to you and the liberel spread the wealth crowd.
cheer up. now you can again start going to obama's empty rally festivals, i understand he has a whole new list of dreamy promises for you all. don't get your hopes up thugh, this lazy uninspired "leader" has been known to use cardboard sillouhettes to fill in at simultaneous funspeech events. and i don't think the press will be quite as devoted this time around. more government means higher priced movie tickets. the real conflict is hollywood (indie film) will choke on the "evil" philosophy that continues to change the face of american politics fifty four years after it came out.  if a novel can be profoundly crippling, wait till the movie comes out.  rand feared no one, it's all in the books. ouch for your team, you can't stop this train wesley mouch.


----------



## washamericom

Seawytch said:


> I just wonder how many tea baggie heads will explode when they find out that Atlas Shrugged is about high speed rail...



like the accella ? gafaw, chortle chortle.

Acela Express - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we'll have a look at the success of amtrak today. good example, thank you.


----------



## Lasher

konradv said:


> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.



It's so easy to spot the socialist, Marxist, one-worlders in here.


----------



## Lasher

konradv said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt _Das Kapital _was a damn fine read though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't try to masquerade as a novel.  That all you got to say?  A "you're a commie" one-liner?!?!   Get back to us when you've got something of substance to say.
Click to expand...


"You're a commie" sounds very sustainable to me.


----------



## Lasher

Claudette said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.
> 
> I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
> 
> I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
> 
> Jesus. Boredom plus.
Click to expand...


Claudette, you're disappointing me.


----------



## Lasher

Claudette said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.
> 
> I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
> 
> I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
> 
> Jesus. Boredom plus.
Click to expand...


P.S.  I am surprised to learn that a school system would foster the reading of such anti-liberal anathema.  Must have been a private school.


----------



## Lasher

Jroc said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have long been an Ayn Rand advocate and supporter. There is a movie based on one of her books, "The Fountainhead" and I loved watching it 3 times, from Netflix.  Some great actors. Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal ( in her debut performance). HOT movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humm...I've never heard of this movie, I'm going to have to check it out.
Click to expand...


Man, you're way behind the times.


----------



## Lasher

jillian said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book has been a fool proof indicator  of intelligence. Idiots hate it. Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Book" isn't a proper noun in the above sentence and shouldn't be capitalized.
Click to expand...


Maybe he thinks of it as some do "The Bible?"


----------



## Lasher

washamericom said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have long been an Ayn Rand advocate and supporter. There is a movie based on one of her books, "The Fountainhead" and I loved watching it 3 times, from Netflix.  Some great actors. Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal ( in her debut performance). HOT movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humm...I've never heard of this movie, I'm going to have to check it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the fountainhead is awesome too, there aren't too many movies i'll watch in black and white.
> she didn't write many novels.  we the living...
> you might also check out some of the interviews with ayn...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k]YouTube - Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1[/ame]
> 
> live television...
Click to expand...


"Anthem" was another of her novels, and then there is the non-fictional "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," "The Virtue of Selfishness," and  "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology."  I think "Anthem" was supposed to be a fictionalized account of her early life.


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> Note that Ayn Rand's egoism was so profoundly crippling that she feared Wm F. Buckley, arguably the smartest modern conservative in our lifetimes?



Sure she did.

More KOS wisdom shit from the ass of a mindless leftist...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lasher said:


> "Anthem" was another of her novels, and then there is the non-fictional "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," "The Virtue of Selfishness," and  "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology."  I think "Anthem" was supposed to be a fictionalized account of her early life.



You are confusing "Anthem" with "We, the living" which was a horrific look at life in Lenin's USSR, including the mass starvation of St. Petersburg in 1923, when the attempt at full Communism was made.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Great Book for sure. But be very careful and wary on this one. Liberal Hollywood could be playing another dirty trick on you. Anything produced in Liberal Hollywood should be viewed with much caution. They'll likely try and spin it in a negative light which favors their Socialist/Progressive political ideology. That's what most Liberal Hollywood productions do. So don't be surprised if they ruin it and present the opposite spin on this Ayn Rand Masterpiece. Could be just another Liberal Hollywood dirty trick. I hope not though. It really is a great work.


----------



## LostAmerican

One of the great novelists of all time was Mickey Spillane.

He said, "I write the first chapter so you will by the book and the last chapter so you will buy my next book."

He also said,"I don't have fans, I have customers and customers are my friends!"


----------



## LibocalypseNow

I'm always very skeptical of anything Liberal Hollywood produces. They always put their Socialist/Progressive spin in their productions. So i could see them completely ruining this great work. They'll likely spin Rand's work into some kind of typical Liberal Hollywood propaganda film. It could very well end up being an Anti-Ayn Rand film. I wouldn't be surprised. Liberal Hollywood aint got nothin on Joseph Goebbels.


----------



## washamericom

LibocalypseNow said:


> Great Book for sure. But be very careful and wary on this one. Liberal Hollywood could be playing another dirty trick on you. Anything produced in Liberal Hollywood should be viewed with much caution. They'll likely try and spin it in a negative light which favors their Socialist/Progressive political ideology. That's what most Liberal Hollywood productions do. So don't be surprised if they ruin it and present the opposite spin on this Ayn Rand Masterpiece. Could be just another Liberal Hollywood dirty trick. I hope not though. It really is a great work.



rest easy, i've just seen it... it's great...  it's an indie film, can't wait to see it again and again, it's true to form, a well done film to be sure.
it's a limited opening, my sources tell me that hollywood hates it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2683422/posts

all they have to do it create a buzz, which they have. the real scope of this indie project will come in the form of dvd, sales and accessability to the public, just like in the book.
the worst scenario nightmare for the dimocrats will be when the movie's a hit and obama doesn't get re-elected. part of winning the future.


*"The future is yesterday...". * mR. thompson


----------



## ScreamingEagle

LibocalypseNow said:


> I'm always very skeptical of anything Liberal Hollywood produces. They always put their Socialist/Progressive spin in their productions. So i could see them completely ruining this great work. They'll likely spin Rand's work into some kind of typical Liberal Hollywood propaganda film. It could very well end up being an Anti-Ayn Rand film. I wouldn't be surprised. Liberal Hollywood aint got nothin on Joseph Goebbels.



Don't think much "Socialist/Progressive spin" will be on this movie....it seems major studio Hollywood already had a crack at it...but passed it up probably for political reasons...too bad for them because i think this movie will be a major blockbuster...shades of The Passion...


> The movie was budgeted at perhaps $70 million. They got Geyer Kosinski, the manager of Angelina Jolie, as well as Jolie herself and a number of other stars connected to the project.
> 
> Unfortunately, the leadership at that studio couldn&#8217;t see fit to carry out that vision of the movie. Ultimately, whether it was politics or something about the storyline or whatever, they didn&#8217;t want to put the capital behind the project.



After that John Aglialoro financed it himself...and he is an Ayn Rand aficionado...


> Who is John Aglialoro? Probably no one since Ayn Rand has invested so much in Atlas Shrugged. For nearly two decades he has championed the novel &#8212; financially, intellectually, logistically &#8212; because he was determined to make a movie that would do justice to Rand&#8217;s masterpiece.
> 
> Ranked by Forbes Small Business as the 10th richest executive of any small publicly-traded company (revenues under $200 million) in 2007, Aglialoro is one of those rare corporate executives who fully &#8220;gets&#8221; the philosophical message in Atlas Shrugged. And he wants the rest of the world to get it, too &#8212; by seeing it on the big screen.
> 
> John Aglialoro on the Atlas Shrugged movie :: The Atlasphere



...I like that this movie (1st of a trilogy) is opening on April 15th...Tax Day....quite appropriate...


----------



## LostAmerican

Should you trust the philosophy of a woman who looks like Peter Lorre?














​


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Should you trust the philosophy of a man who looks like Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine...?


----------



## noose4

ScreamingEagle said:


> Should you trust the philosophy of a man who looks like Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine...?



No you definitely should not


----------



## washamericom

screamingeagle said:


> should you trust the philosophy of a man who looks like alfred e. Neuman of mad magazine...?


awesome!!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

noose4 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should you trust the philosophy of a man who looks like Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you definitely should not
Click to expand...


First set, dead on.

Second set, not real close...


----------



## washamericom

lostamerican said:


> should you trust the philosophy of a woman who looks like peter lorre?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​



look.... Both peter lorre's are giving us the finger


----------



## Mr Liberty

If something as simple as a movie could change the face of American politics,  It would have happened with Orwell's 1984.  I would love for it to change.  I just don't believe it will.  Why continue to produce, when it's easier to collect from the State?  
  What will change American politics?  The collapse of the USD.  We cannot keep financing the military industrial complex and the social welfare state.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNiJc7yxKHg&NR=1]YouTube - John Galt&#39;s Speech - Atlas Shrugged[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mr Liberty said:


> If something as simple as a movie could change the face of American politics,  It would have happened with Orwell's 1984.



The first film of 1984 was poorly done. The later version was much better but not timely after the fall of the USSR.



> What will change American politics?  The collapse of the USD.  We cannot keep financing the military industrial complex and the social welfare state.



You would be amazed.

We sit at the brink of an economic revolution that will dwarf even the digital revolution. It will change the world and boost the US economy into the stratosphere. I speak of biotechnology, the epicenter of which is in the USA.

We are on the brink of the golden age, economically speaking.


----------



## MarcATL

gekaap said:


> I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, but the novel, for its purposes, fails to deliver.  Rand take unbelievable characters and puts them into unbelievable scenarios, with the result of what is an unbelievable outcome.  One thing I found very curious is Rand's inconsistent portrayal of the general public and public sentiment.  On one hand she portrays the public as knowing, understanding, and even demanding the ideals represented by her protagonists and shows them as being frequently moved into action, like in the frequent abandonment of jobs, including railroad jobs, by many people across Rand's United States.  But when it suits her she subsequently portrays the public as mindless and ignorant masses, lazy and entitled to a such a gross degree it is difficult to say whether they or the primary antagonists are the embodiment of the evil Rand suggests exists.
> 
> Rand's proper characters, both antagonists and protagonists alike, are written as if being embodies metaphors for the supreme purity of concepts Rand wished to present.  This makes them believable in the Rand universe similar to how Gollum is a believable character within the LOTR universe, but unbelievable as characters that might exist in reality.  While Rand does an excellent job of presenting a thoroughly thought out narrative and maintains a steady pace of developing the complexity of the plot as the story unfolds, in the end the plot itself, its developments, and Rand's suggestion about how our world might go if we so allowed it, only exists because it was so written.


Very well said.

The movie looks like a marriage of Sci-Fi & Lifetime, resulting in one big B-Movie that slipped through the cracks and fell through to limited theaters in Far RW towns, cities and states.

...interesting.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Lasher said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.
> 
> I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
> 
> I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
> 
> Jesus. Boredom plus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S.  I am surprised to learn that a school system would foster the reading of such anti-liberal anathema.  Must have been a private school.
Click to expand...


I was also forced to read Atlas Shrugged in public school.

Awful book.

I can't wait for the three-hour speech though. I guess they're gonna have make it it's own movie....


----------



## editec

Rand's message in ATlas Shrugged was revolutionary.

And just in case some of you have yet to get it?

Her proposed revolution is being done right before your very eyes.

AT minimum the first shots were fired when Ronald Regan took office.

And the war continues to be waged through legislation designed to bankrupt the government AND the American middle class, too.

And about half the posters here approve of this revolution, too, far as I can tell.

The only question in my mind is this: _How many of you people really approve of the END GAME of this revolution?_

Not many of you would be my guess.

Most of you people really do love this nation and do think that the Randian plan will serve it.

You're wrong, but at least you're wrong for the right reasons.


----------



## LostAmerican

editec said:


> Rand's message in ATlas Shrugged was revolutionary.
> 
> And just in case some of you have yet to get it?
> 
> Her proposed revolution is being done right before your very eyes.
> 
> AT minimum the first shots were fired when Ronald Regan took office.
> 
> And the war continues to be waged through legislation designed to bankrupt the government AND the American middle class, too.
> 
> And about half the posters here approve of this revolution, too, far as I can tell.
> 
> The only question in my mind is this: _How many of you people really approve of the END GAME of this revolution?_
> 
> Not many of you would be my guess.
> 
> Most of you people really do love this nation and do think that the Randian plan will serve it.
> 
> You're wrong, but at least you're wrong for the right reasons.


 
Ayn Rand philosophy is being applied by invader Mexicans. Steal everything you can and take no responsibility for anything. Lets see how long the world can last on that.


----------



## washamericom

LostAmerican said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand's message in ATlas Shrugged was revolutionary.
> 
> And just in case some of you have yet to get it?
> 
> Her proposed revolution is being done right before your very eyes.
> 
> AT minimum the first shots were fired when Ronald Regan took office.
> 
> And the war continues to be waged through legislation designed to bankrupt the government AND the American middle class, too.
> 
> And about half the posters here approve of this revolution, too, far as I can tell.
> 
> The only question in my mind is this: _How many of you people really approve of the END GAME of this revolution?_
> 
> Not many of you would be my guess.
> 
> Most of you people really do love this nation and do think that the Randian plan will serve it.
> 
> You're wrong, but at least you're wrong for the right reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand philosophy is being applied by invader Mexicans. Steal everything you can and take no responsibility for anything. Lets see how long the world can last on that.
Click to expand...


""a thousand seniors a day are dying of starvation, some in my district, some are messageboard racists, and some are killing babies, and defenseless bunny rabbits" nancy pelosi


----------



## Uncensored2008

MarcATL said:


> The movie looks like a marriage of Sci-Fi & Lifetime, resulting in one big B-Movie that slipped through the cracks and fell through to limited theaters in Far RW towns, cities and states.
> 
> ...interesting.



Yeah, nameless backwaters like Los Angeles and New York...

When one lets partisanship rather than intellect define ones post - we get idiocy like you posted....


----------



## Uncensored2008

LostAmerican said:


> Ayn Rand philosophy is being applied by invader Mexicans. Steal everything you can and take no responsibility for anything. Lets see how long the world can last on that.



Rand had one simple message, you must offer equal value for what you demand. The most ethical act is the trade of value for value.

It is you of the left who seek to offer the threat of violence in exchange for value, or the use of fraud to take what you didn't earn.  Rand advocated that one never take what one had not earned. This is a concept you of the left cannot grasp. You believe yourselves entitled by your need to take what you desire.


----------



## washamericom

Uncensored2008 said:


> LostAmerican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand philosophy is being applied by invader Mexicans. Steal everything you can and take no responsibility for anything. Lets see how long the world can last on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rand had one simple message, you must offer equal value for what you demand. The most ethical act is the trade of value for value.
> 
> It is you of the left who seek to offer the threat of violence in exchange for value, or the use of fraud to take what you didn't earn.  Rand advocated that one never take what one had not earned. This is a concept you of the left cannot grasp. You believe yourselves entitled by your need to take what you desire.
Click to expand...


damn... you're good..... it's as if she's in the room.


----------



## MarcATL

Uncensored2008 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The movie looks like a marriage of Sci-Fi & Lifetime, resulting in one big B-Movie that slipped through the cracks and fell through to limited theaters in Far RW towns, cities and states.
> 
> ...interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, nameless backwaters like Los Angeles and New York...
> 
> When one lets partisanship rather than intellect define ones post - we get idiocy like you posted....
Click to expand...


Are you really that dumb or just completely dense?

LA and NYC ALWAYS have and feature films that can be seen almost NO WHERE else in the country.

I lived over a decade in NYC, I used to be quite the film buff. Watching rare international and indie films that get released in limited cities. So I think I know a little of what I speak.

How many theaters is this flick being released in?

Can you tell me that?

Here in Atlanta. GA...a RW bastion...its only in ONE theater on the 15th.

What does that tell you?

You far RWers really are a piece of work.

*SHMH*


----------



## Uncensored2008

MarcATL said:


> Are you really that dumb or just completely dense?
> 
> LA and NYC ALWAYS have and feature films that can be seen almost NO WHERE else in the country.



So then, what you had posted was complete bullshit and really fucking stupid.

That was kind of my point.



> How many theaters is this flick being released in?



I have no idea. It IS an independent film, no one is claiming otherwise. Obviously the Hollywood left isn't going to produce Rand's ideas.



> What does that tell you?



Not much.

The Passion of the Christ was supposed to be a major flop as well.

How did that work out for you of the extreme left?


----------



## MarcATL

Uncensored2008 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that dumb or just completely dense?
> 
> LA and NYC ALWAYS have and feature films that can be seen almost NO WHERE else in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, what you had posted was complete bullshit and really fucking stupid.
> 
> That was kind of my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many theaters is this flick being released in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea. It IS an independent film, no one is claiming otherwise. Obviously the Hollywood left isn't going to produce Rand's ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much.
> *
> The Passion of the Christ was supposed to be a major flop as well.
> 
> How did that work out for you of the extreme left?*
Click to expand...


I saw the Passion of Christ in the theaters twice.

I have it on DVD and watch it periodically.

I read my bible and had personal devotion before leaving for work this morning.

Don't ASS.ume.


----------



## hipeter924

MarcATL said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that dumb or just completely dense?
> 
> LA and NYC ALWAYS have and feature films that can be seen almost NO WHERE else in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, what you had posted was complete bullshit and really fucking stupid.
> 
> That was kind of my point.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea. It IS an independent film, no one is claiming otherwise. Obviously the Hollywood left isn't going to produce Rand's ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not much.
> *
> The Passion of the Christ was supposed to be a major flop as well.
> 
> How did that work out for you of the extreme left?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I saw the Passion of Christ in the theaters twice.*
> 
> *I have it on DVD and watch it periodically.*
> 
> I read my bible and had personal devotion before leaving for work this morning.
> 
> Don't ASS.ume.
Click to expand...

Firefly is better, especially the 'fix the bible' part. 

PS: Most of the 'extreme left' are hypocrites, many don't really know what they are standing for means living a minimalist life style, not wasting money on XBOX and computer games (which communist groups in fact do spend their money on).


----------



## washamericom

Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston and NYC Among First to Screen Film 
ShareThis  Email  PDF  Print  Atlas Shrugged opens in theaters April 15th
We are rapidly booking theaters and look forward to announcing more over the next several weeks. Culver City, CA (Vocus/PRWEB) March 01, 2011 

The Strike Productions, Inc. and Rocky Mountain Pictures today announced the eleven markets ATLAS SHRUGGED PART 1 will premiere on April 15, 2011. 

The initial markets include Los Angeles (Orange County), San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, Washington DC, New York City, South Florida, Boston, Denver, Dallas and Chicago.

&#8220;We are rapidly booking theaters and look forward to announcing more over the next several weeks. We&#8217;re off to a great start.&#8221; said Randy Slaughter of Rocky Mountain Pictures.

&#8220;Each of these initial markets have huge fan bases for Ayn Rand&#8217;s novel, and we&#8217;re thrilled to bring our film to them first,&#8221; according to Harmon Kaslow, the film&#8217;s producer.

&#8220;Fans will also be very excited to know they will have the opportunity to pre-purchase tickets very soon at our web site.&#8221; affirmed Kaslow.

ATLAS SHRUGGED PART I, a movie based on the Part I of Ayn Rand&#8217;s epic novel "Atlas Shrugged", is scheduled to open in limited release on April 15, 2011. For more information, visit Atlas Shrugged Movie - The Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site.

About &#8220;The Strike&#8221; Productions: 
&#8220;The Strike&#8221; Productions, Inc. was created by producers John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow as a new production company for the sole purpose of producing a trilogy of films based on Ayn Rand&#8217;s epic novel, "Atlas Shrugged." For more information, visit Atlas Shrugged Movie - The Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site 

About Rocky Mountain Pictures 
Rocky Mountain Pictures is a &#8220;distributor for hire&#8221; who acts as a liaison between the independent producer/distributor and the exhibitors. For more information, visit Rocky Mountain Pictures | Upcoming Releases


----------



## Uncensored2008

MarcATL said:


> I saw the Passion of Christ in the theaters twice.



Irrelevant.

That doesn't alter at all the fact that the left was claiming that an independent film, entirely in Aramaic, would be an utter and complete flop.

The claim of Atlas being a flop will be similar. 

What will hurt this film is the length - what will save it is Netflix.


----------



## washamericom

Uncensored2008 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the Passion of Christ in the theaters twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> That doesn't alter at all the fact that the left was claiming that an independent film, entirely in Aramaic, would be an utter and complete flop.
> 
> The claim of Atlas being a flop will be similar.
> 
> What will hurt this film is the length - what will save it is Netflix.
Click to expand...


it's amazing... atlas shrugged the movie will be the first film of social significance that will be available to anyone who wants to see it. the tech age is a beautiful methaphor and tribute to rand's philosophy and assertion that man is most creative when not stifled by the heavy hammer and anvil of government oppression.


----------



## Agit8r

Uncensored2008 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that dumb or just completely dense?
> 
> LA and NYC ALWAYS have and feature films that can be seen almost NO WHERE else in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, what you had posted was complete bullshit and really fucking stupid.
> 
> That was kind of my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many theaters is this flick being released in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea. It IS an independent film, no one is claiming otherwise. Obviously the Hollywood left isn't going to produce Rand's ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much.
> 
> The Passion of the Christ was supposed to be a major flop as well.
> 
> How did that work out for you of the extreme left?
Click to expand...


will Galt's rant against mysticism and the sacrificial mentality it spawns resonate with the same crowd?  Oh, the irony!


----------



## theDoctorisIn

washamericom said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the Passion of Christ in the theaters twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> That doesn't alter at all the fact that the left was claiming that an independent film, entirely in Aramaic, would be an utter and complete flop.
> 
> The claim of Atlas being a flop will be similar.
> 
> What will hurt this film is the length - what will save it is Netflix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's amazing... atlas shrugged the movie will be the first film of social significance that will be available to anyone who wants to see it. the tech age is a beautiful methaphor and tribute to rand's philosophy and assertion that man is most creative when not stifled by the heavy hammer and anvil of government oppression.
Click to expand...


This is the funniest thing I've read all day.

"the first film of social significance that will be available to anyone who wants to see it.."

Do you work for the distribution company? That's the only explanation I can come up with your emotional investment in this movie. Either that, or you're such a Randite fanboy that you're busting in your jeans over anything with her name on it.

Atlas Shrugged is a vanity project funded by a single man, starring b-actors from bad television shows. It's not going to "change" anything.


----------



## washamericom

theDoctorisIn said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> That doesn't alter at all the fact that the left was claiming that an independent film, entirely in Aramaic, would be an utter and complete flop.
> 
> The claim of Atlas being a flop will be similar.
> 
> What will hurt this film is the length - what will save it is Netflix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's amazing... atlas shrugged the movie will be the first film of social significance that will be available to anyone who wants to see it. the tech age is a beautiful methaphor and tribute to rand's philosophy and assertion that man is most creative when not stifled by the heavy hammer and anvil of government oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the funniest thing I've read all day.
> 
> "the first film of social significance that will be available to anyone who wants to see it.."
> 
> Do you work for the distribution company? That's the only explanation I can come up with your emotional investment in this movie. Either that, or you're such a Randite fanboy that you're busting in your jeans over anything with her name on it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged is a vanity project funded by a single man, starring b-actors from bad television shows. It's not going to "change" anything.
Click to expand...


jealous, try getting out more.

hollywood's trying to stop it, that right there should tell you something. what makes you think automatically i'm male... seems kind of sexist.
zat allu got ? let's just see what happens... shall we. ? i do have financial interest in it's success, but it's not about the money. have you read the novel or seen the movie, or are you just a blowhard ? glad you're amused.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

washamericom said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's amazing... atlas shrugged the movie will be the first film of social significance that will be available to anyone who wants to see it. the tech age is a beautiful methaphor and tribute to rand's philosophy and assertion that man is most creative when not stifled by the heavy hammer and anvil of government oppression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the funniest thing I've read all day.
> 
> "the first film of social significance that will be available to anyone who wants to see it.."
> 
> Do you work for the distribution company? That's the only explanation I can come up with your emotional investment in this movie. Either that, or you're such a Randite fanboy that you're busting in your jeans over anything with her name on it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged is a vanity project funded by a single man, starring b-actors from bad television shows. It's not going to "change" anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jealous
Click to expand...


Of what?


----------



## washamericom

theDoctorisIn said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the funniest thing I've read all day.
> 
> "the first film of social significance that will be available to anyone who wants to see it.."
> 
> Do you work for the distribution company? That's the only explanation I can come up with your emotional investment in this movie. Either that, or you're such a Randite fanboy that you're busting in your jeans over anything with her name on it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged is a vanity project funded by a single man, starring b-actors from bad television shows. It's not going to "change" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jealous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of what?
Click to expand...



you're projecting man...


----------



## theDoctorisIn

washamericom said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> jealous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you're projecting man...
Click to expand...


Projecting from what?

I don't think you know what these words you're using mean...

EDIT TO ADD:

*This is the DEVIL'S post!!!!!*


----------



## washamericom

theDoctorisIn said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're projecting man...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projecting from what?
> 
> I don't think you know what these words you're using mean...
> 
> EDIT TO ADD:
> 
> *This is the DEVIL'S post!!!!!*
Click to expand...


projecting to... look at what you wrote at me, you're talking to yourself


----------



## theDoctorisIn

washamericom said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're projecting man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting from what?
> 
> I don't think you know what these words you're using mean...
> 
> EDIT TO ADD:
> 
> *This is the DEVIL'S post!!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> projecting to... look at what you wrote at me, you're talking to yourself
Click to expand...


Wait... you mean really I'm saying that _I'm_ a shitty vanity project starring wannabes?


----------



## washamericom

STRIKERS,

6 DAYS LEFT. New Atlas Shrugged movie theaters announced today in AL, CA, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, KS, KY, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NV, NY, OH, TN, TX, VA, WI, and WV - more to come. 

"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." 
-- Ayn Rand

New listings available on the Atlas Shrugged theaters page.

Get involved


----------



## NYcarbineer

It's hilarious how the Right has pre-annointed this film as a great success.

Their myths about events are now preceding the actual events.


----------



## Agit8r

NYcarbineer said:


> It's hilarious how the Right has pre-annointed this film as a great success.
> 
> Their myths about events are now preceding the actual events.



I'm surprised at the high level of regard that "mystics" hold for it


----------



## theDoctorisIn

I think it's "full disclosure" time.

Wash, do you own a piece of that film? Is your constant posting and over-the-top praise for this movie financially based?

Or are you just a Randite fanboy?


----------



## bripat9643

LostAmerican said:


> Ayn Rand philosophy is being applied by invader Mexicans. Steal everything you can and take no responsibility for anything. Lets see how long the world can last on that.



Stealing everything you can is the liberal moral code.  The welfare state is just a vast criminal conspiracy.

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## bripat9643

editec said:


> Note that Ayn Rand's egoism was so profoundly crippling that she feared Wm F. Buckley, arguably the smartest modern conservative in our lifetimes?



Where is the evidence for this utter bullshit?


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> I just wonder how many tea baggie heads will explode when they find out that Atlas Shrugged is about high speed rail...




Why are libs so intent on demonstrating what profound ignoramuses they are?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Agit8r said:


> will Galt's rant against mysticism and the sacrificial mentality it spawns resonate with the same crowd?  Oh, the irony!



I don't think it's aimed at the same crowd.


----------



## Uncensored2008

theDoctorisIn said:


> Of what?



I don't know how well Atlas will translate to a movie. While I find the speech on money by "Francisco D'Anconia" to be about the most profound and meaningful passage I have ever read, I don't know how well it will be received in film. Film is a visual, rather than an intellectual medium.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Agit8r said:


> I'm surprised at the high level of regard that "mystics" hold for it



Do you have quotes by Algore and Michael Mann about their regard? I hadn't seen any mystics favoring this - most of them are still demanding virgins for the AGW "volcano god."


----------



## Uncensored2008

theDoctorisIn said:


> I think it's "full disclosure" time.
> 
> Wash, do you own a piece of that film? Is your constant posting and over-the-top praise for this movie financially based?
> 
> Or are you just a Randite fanboy?



Will you disclose?

Are in somehow shorting stock in the film, or are you just a petulant child throwing spitwads at that which you cannot grasp?


----------



## washamericom

Uncensored2008 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's "full disclosure" time.
> 
> Wash, do you own a piece of that film? Is your constant posting and over-the-top praise for this movie financially based?
> 
> Or are you just a Randite fanboy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you disclose?
> 
> Are in somehow shorting stock in the film, or are you just a petulant child throwing spitwads at that which you cannot grasp?
Click to expand...


i'm not running for any office... yet


STRIKERS,

ALERT: Wesley Mouch urges all to boycott the Atlas Shrugged Movie this Friday, April 15th. Listen to Wesley Mouch's voice mail.

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-voice-mail-wesley-mouch#

Buy your tickets now 
The looters and the moochers are on the loose and they're not happy. Buy your tickets now by visting our theaters page and looking for the "BUY TICKETS" button.

Not in your town yet? Demand ATLAS!


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Uncensored2008 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's "full disclosure" time.
> 
> Wash, do you own a piece of that film? Is your constant posting and over-the-top praise for this movie financially based?
> 
> Or are you just a Randite fanboy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you disclose?
> 
> Are in somehow shorting stock in the film, or are you just a petulant child throwing spitwads at that which you cannot grasp?
Click to expand...

Full disclosure? Sure. I'm ex-film industry, and I know a vanity film when I see one. (think "Battlefield Earth", for Rand-fanboys instead of Scientologists).

A 4 year old can "grasp" Rand's ideas. They're not complicated.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

washamericom said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's amazing... atlas shrugged the movie will be the first film of social significance that will be available to anyone who wants to see it. the tech age is a beautiful methaphor and tribute to rand's philosophy and assertion that man is most creative when not stifled by the heavy hammer and anvil of government oppression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the funniest thing I've read all day.
> 
> "the first film of social significance that will be available to anyone who wants to see it.."
> 
> Do you work for the distribution company? That's the only explanation I can come up with your emotional investment in this movie. Either that, or you're such a Randite fanboy that you're busting in your jeans over anything with her name on it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged is a vanity project funded by a single man, starring b-actors from bad television shows. It's not going to "change" anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jealous, try getting out more.
> 
> hollywood's trying to stop it, that right there should tell you something. what makes you think automatically i'm male... seems kind of sexist.
> zat allu got ? let's just see what happens... shall we. ? i do have financial interest in it's success, but it's not about the money. have you read the novel or seen the movie, or are you just a blowhard ? glad you're amused.
Click to expand...


Haven't seen the movie, since it's not out yet, and I no longer work in the industry. I read Atlas Shrugged about 10 years ago, and I've re-read parts of it since then, but I think it's an awfully written book. It's boring, two dimensional, and repetitive. How many times in one book does Objectivism need to be explained?

 I apologize for assuming you're a man if you're not, gender is generally hard to figure out on a message board.

And, no, "Hollywood" isn't trying to stop it. Where did you get that one from?


----------



## washamericom

it's in the novel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pgh96DhU7Yc#at=78

i have hollywood sources but i can't name names.


----------



## uscitizen

This atlas shrugged and Ayn Rand thing just cracks me up.
I mean get real folks.  Hero worship is for little children.


----------



## washamericom

uscitizen said:


> This atlas shrugged and Ayn Rand thing just cracks me up.
> I mean get real folks.  Hero worship is for little children.



which is more babyish this or the birth certificate?
it's pretty funny, cause it's just a story.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdaGkUSUkU


----------



## theDoctorisIn

washamericom said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This atlas shrugged and Ayn Rand thing just cracks me up.
> I mean get real folks.  Hero worship is for little children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is more babyish this or the birth certificate?
Click to expand...


The BC shit.

By far.


----------



## washamericom

theDoctorisIn said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This atlas shrugged and Ayn Rand thing just cracks me up.
> I mean get real folks.  Hero worship is for little children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is more babyish this or the birth certificate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The BC shit.
> 
> By far.
Click to expand...


this is america, we'll have both


----------



## washamericom

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PK5Sq3bIHY]YouTube - Atlas Shrugged Movie Clip: Henry Rearden Comes Home[/ame]


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> This atlas shrugged and Ayn Rand thing just cracks me up.
> I mean get real folks.  Hero worship is for little children.



At the 684th post, this was relevant, how?

Its pretty obvious that the film based on Ayn Rand's theme of Objectivist Morality has your panties in a wad as much as it does any other statist.


----------



## washamericom

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8fkdBz2bds&feature=related]YouTube - The Fountainhead in 5 Seconds[/ame]


----------



## Samson

washamericom said:


> YouTube - The Fountainhead in 5 Seconds



It's my duty to let you know that no one will watch that, or any other video of any Ayn Rand Book!!!


----------



## washamericom

Samson said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - The Fountainhead in 5 Seconds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's my duty to let you know that no one will watch that, or any other video of any Ayn Rand Book!!!
Click to expand...


i'll look around for the shorter version.

Atlas Shrugged Movie - James Taggart Voice mail


see... this (below) is a good example of what would be the opposite of atlas shrugged. constitutional crisis.

If Mr. Obama was not born in America, then it would serve as the final damning indictment of the establishment media&#8217;s complicity with the Democratic Party. Not only would it bring the Obama presidency down, but the entire liberal power structure as well. (frome the washington times)


----------



## washamericom

OBAMA HEAPS WHILE BIDEN SLEEPS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1XxH-oIHNUc]YouTube - Lillian Rearden Voice Mail


----------



## Gunny

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> YouTube - Atlas Shrugged Trailer
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



Great.  Another nutjob.  You Ayn Rand disciples need lobotomies to increase your IQs up to retarded.


----------



## washamericom

Gunny said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> YouTube - Atlas Shrugged Trailer
> 
> it looks good, no, great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Another nutjob.  You Ayn Rand disciples need lobotomies to increase your IQs up to retarded.
Click to expand...


C'MON GUNNY... YOU DIDN'T READ IT AS A KID ? i figured you as a pro capitalist...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gunny said:


> Great.  Another nutjob.  You Ayn Rand disciples need lobotomies to increase your IQs up to retarded.



Your preference leans towards Marx, then?


----------



## Intense

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> YouTube - Atlas Shrugged Trailer
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



Lets just hope they don't fuck it up.


----------



## Intense

Gunny said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> YouTube - Atlas Shrugged Trailer
> 
> it looks good, no, great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Another nutjob.  You Ayn Rand disciples need lobotomies to increase your IQs up to retarded.
Click to expand...


Tell us what you really think Gunny.  Don't sugar coat it. 

I'll take Ayn Rand thinking over McCain any day.


----------



## Political Junky

washamericom said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - The Fountainhead in 5 Seconds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's my duty to let you know that no one will watch that, or any other video of any Ayn Rand Book!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'll look around for the shorter version.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Movie - James Taggart Voice mail
> 
> 
> see... this (below) is a good example of what would be the opposite of atlas shrugged. constitutional crisis.
> 
> If Mr. Obama was not born in America, then it would serve as the final damning indictment of the establishment media&#8217;s complicity with the Democratic Party. Not only would it bring the Obama presidency down, but the entire liberal power structure as well. (frome the washington times)
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of Rand's followers know that she was an atheist. It seems such a contrast to right wing christians.


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Another nutjob.  You Ayn Rand disciples need lobotomies to increase your IQs up to retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your preference leans towards Marx, then?
Click to expand...


More like Stalin or Pol Pot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Political Junky said:


> I wonder how many of Rand's followers know that she was an atheist.



Somewhere in the realm of 100% or so. Why?



> It seems such a contrast to right wing christians.



In that case the Christians should embrace Marxism, so much closer to their liking... Huh?

You  lefties got it all figured out...


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> More like Stalin or Pol Pot.



Odd, Gunny has sounded conservative in other posts.

Some of the religious types hate Rand for pointing out that religion is irrational.


----------



## washamericom

i've pretty much spent this last year working on this shorter version of the novel, for those people who no longer have time to read. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ZQ5gP7Nf0]YouTube - quickyshrugg[/ame]


----------



## Truthseeker420

bripat9643 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Another nutjob.  You Ayn Rand disciples need lobotomies to increase your IQs up to retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your preference leans towards Marx, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like Stalin or Pol Pot.
Click to expand...


lol that makes him a Communists

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCqQRflUWd4]YouTube - Learn to Speak Tea Bag[/ame]


----------



## washamericom

rand's focus was a subordination of a viable proletariat, with respect to seperation of church and state.
&#8220;Just as philosophy finds its material weapons in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds it's intellectual weapons in philosophy &#8230; Philosophy can only be realized by the abolition of the proletariat, and the proletariat can only be abolished by the realization of philosophy.&#8221; &#8211; Marx
where's trosky when we need him ??


----------



## Bern80

Political Junky said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my duty to let you know that no one will watch that, or any other video of any Ayn Rand Book!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'll look around for the shorter version.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Movie - James Taggart Voice mail
> 
> 
> see... this (below) is a good example of what would be the opposite of atlas shrugged. constitutional crisis.
> 
> If Mr. Obama was not born in America, then it would serve as the final damning indictment of the establishment medias complicity with the Democratic Party. Not only would it bring the Obama presidency down, but the entire liberal power structure as well. (frome the washington times)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder how many of Rand's followers know that she was an atheist. It seems such a contrast to right wing christians.
Click to expand...


Kind of a red herring of an argument. To anyone who has studied her at all, it ought to be fairly obvious that an objectivist isn't going to believe in a god.


----------



## Bern80

washamericom said:


> rand's focus was a subordination of a viable proletariat, with respect to seperation of church and state.
> &#8220;Just as philosophy finds its material weapons in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds it's intellectual weapons in philosophy &#8230; Philosophy can only be realized by the abolition of the proletariat, and the proletariat can only be abolished by the realization of philosophy.&#8221; &#8211; Marx
> where's trosky when we need him ??



In the sense that the proletariat ought not be able to violate ones personal freedom or property rights, yes. How radical of her.


----------



## washamericom

bripat9643 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Another nutjob.  You Ayn Rand disciples need lobotomies to increase your IQs up to retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your preference leans towards Marx, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like Stalin or Pol Pot.
Click to expand...


you mean stalin smoked pot ??


----------



## Big Fitz

uscitizen said:


> This atlas shrugged and Ayn Rand thing just cracks me up.
> I mean get real folks.  Hero worship is for little children.


Really?  How's P-BO's ass taste?  A little hypocrisy there.  Like Idi Amin telling Ghandi "You are too intense!"


----------



## Uncensored2008

washamericom said:


> you mean stalin smoked pot ??



No, but he smoked Trotsky...

(along with 65 million others...)


----------



## BarbaraHavers

Claudette said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.
> 
> I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
> 
> I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
> 
> Jesus. Boredom plus.
Click to expand...


Amen.  It should be listed in the dictionary under "selfishness".


----------



## Uncensored2008

BarbaraHavers said:


> Amen.  It should be listed in the dictionary under "selfishness".



Unintentional irony is the best kind.


----------



## bripat9643

washamericom said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your preference leans towards Marx, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like Stalin or Pol Pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you mean stalin smoked pot ??
Click to expand...


You mean you're so stupid and ignorant that you don't know who Pol Pot is?


----------



## washamericom

well... the movie comes out tomorrow night, i guess my work is done here. i bet that this thread would never make it to five grand. rats.... oh well.. i mean... who is john galt ??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ZQ5gP7Nf0]YouTube - quickyshrugg[/ame]


PART ONE.....


----------



## Maple

The movie Atlas Shrugged, has had to be extended in my area due to demand. I hope all of you, liberals, conservatives and moderates see this movie. You can order your tickets now by googling " Atlas Shrugged," if you don't have it in your area, you can demand it be shown in your town. Tell everyone about this film as it is a true depiction of what happens when government attempts to level the playing field and spread the wealth. The book was written in the 50's by Ayn Rand who was a child in Soviet Russia and then moved to the states. This book was so contraversial at the time that the French would not allow the book to be printed in the French language. It is a must see movie.


----------



## uscitizen

BarbaraHavers said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.
> 
> I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
> 
> I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
> 
> Jesus. Boredom plus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen.  It should be listed in the dictionary under "selfishness".
Click to expand...


Why did you think many right wingers love her and her book?


----------



## uscitizen

Maple said:


> The movie Atlas Shrugged, has had to be extended in my area due to demand. I hope all of you, liberals, conservatives and moderates see this movie. You can order your tickets now by googling " Atlas Shrugged," if you don't have it in your area, you can demand it be shown in your town. Tell everyone about this film as it is a true depiction of what happens when government attempts to level the playing field and spread the wealth. The book was written in the 50's by Ayn Rand who was a child in Soviet Russia and then moved to the states. This book was so contraversial at the time that the French would not allow the book to be printed in the French language. It is a must see movie.



Yeah i will watch that one as soon as I watch some of the fat liberal guys movies.
I forget his name..Ohh mIchael Moore.


----------



## Mr Liberty

BarbaraHavers said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.
> 
> I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
> 
> I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
> 
> Jesus. Boredom plus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen.  It should be listed in the dictionary under "selfishness".
Click to expand...


Funny you should mention selfishness.  I am reading a book titled the "virtue of selfishness" right now.


----------



## Maple

My whole family and a bunch of my friends have pre-ordered tickets to this film.  John Galt is played by Paul Johansson and is he ever one handsome dude.

Paul Johansson - IMDb


----------



## Bern80

uscitizen said:


> BarbaraHavers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.
> 
> I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
> 
> I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
> 
> Jesus. Boredom plus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.  It should be listed in the dictionary under "selfishness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you think many right wingers love her and her book?
Click to expand...


Because they don't believe you are entitled to anything of mine? Just a thought.


----------



## Truthseeker420

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU&feature=related]YouTube - Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East[/ame] Rand was a bigoted idiot.


----------



## Truthseeker420

As a philosopher, Ayn Rand is a good typist.

I should have known that there wouldn't be a single idea of any importance, depth, weight or real substance in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. But I guess hope springs eternal -- that can be my only rationale for once against subjecting myself to Rand.

In short, Rand is a moron. She is a dogmatic crypto-facist whose pseudo-religion is on the same level as scientology. But whereas L. Ron Hubbard's pseudo-religion hung its hooks on techno-babble, Rand hangs her pseudo-religion on philoso-babble. The end results are much the same: small groups of highly loyal followers who never bother to seriously question the gaping holes of logic, sense and decency which riddle their movement.

But make no doubts about it, Rand is involved in pseudo-religion. How many philosophers, modern or otherwise, have their own "foundation?" Most do not need it. Their works can stand the rigors of time without prostelyzing -- or, and most other philosophers understand this, their work likely deserves to be relegated to the dust-bins of history. 

Furthermore, Rand during her own lifetime struggled to control the lives of those around her, using "rationality" as a justification for emotional cruelty and power over the people she called friends. She did things like arrange the marriage of Barbara and Nathaniel Branden tho', according to Barbara, they had no attraction towards each other. Rand believed they should have an affair that was "rational," like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. Likewise, when Rand learned that Murray Rothbard's (an economist) wife was a devout Christian she demanded Murray divorce his wife because it wasn't rational to love a Christian -- Murray, to his credit, cut Rand and her psychopathic movement.

"Rationality," the catchword of Objectivists, really means mind control. Rand was the ultimate arbiter of what was right and what was wrong. Failure to live up to her ideologies resulted in that person being expelled from Rand's circle, whatever that might be. She was a ideologue of the first order, reifying words (such as "rational") to her own twisted perceptions and projecting them on people who were susceptible to such demagogery.

Rand also engaged in the classic activity of ideologues the world over: hypocrisy. I'm not talking run of the mill, pedestrian hypocrisy which it seems everyone engaged in from time to time. Rand engaged in serious, heavy duty hypocrisy.

For instance, her hatred (rational emotion, huh?) of the Soviet Union was well known. Okay. I can see that.

However, in America, she was a proponent of radical levels of personal freedom which has, in many ways, made her the philosopher of choice for Libertarians. Nevertheless, this didn't stop her from attempted censorship along with the House Un-American Activities Committee. The idea that freedom is best served via censorship is absurd because freedom of speech and the press is one of the very reasons she claimed she left Russia in the first place. But because she opposed the ideology of communism, she felt it justified in doing anything to stop them from "spreading their propaganda" -- even if it meant destroying people's freedom of expression.

Rand, alas, was about using a bunch of words to control people. She is no different than any other master of the verbal dodge, be it Hitler or Stalin or Jim Jones. The meaning of these words was never very important so long as they created the proper emotional effect. Rand's use of "rational" is just one case, as is her use of the word "freedom." Her rationality means finding conclusions Rand already possesses and her freedom is the freedom to believe as she does. Furthermore, she was willing to use the government to force people to comply to her definition of freedom -- which is a hypocritical counterexample of her moral philosophy.

This synop of Rand is pretty important to her Epistemology because she does some pretty philosophically unconscionable things. She simply ignores counterexamples which cannot be rightly ignored because the questions posed have not been answered to anyone's satisfaction. Specifically, she ignores the work of Descartes, Kant and Hume. This is simply another example of the way she twists information to support her own biases and support her own sense of infallibility. She's right and if Kant refutes her, well, she can just ignore Kant, can't she?

Alas, she does.

In fact, she ignores the accumulated wisdom of every epistemologist between Aristotle and herself. She does not hide her intentions, really, if you know what to look for. When introducing the various common epistemological stands she mentions in a numbered list extreme realists, moderate realists, nominalists and conceptualists. Then, as a parenthetical aside, she mentions the "extreme nominalist position," which she calls that modern one. Odd, isn't it, that the very position she mentions as being the modern one she relegates to obscurity. It is also the Kantian position and the one taken by people from quantum physicists to many people in the field of simulated and artificial intelligence -- not to mention a considerable number of philosophers.

To her, this is an aside. Which is consistent with her whole life. Things which she doesn't agree with, she ignores regardless of how relevant the information might be to whatever she is discussing.

She also makes vast sins of logic and sense. She says that the accuracy of the sense must be taken for granted! How can this be? Our senses are manifestly inaccurate, obscuring information which is easily deducible while hiding facts that are actually evident. There has not been an epistemologist of weight for five hundred years who has just said, "Oh, yeah, let's just take the senses for granted as being, y'know, evident." Particularly in such an exotic field as epistemology, when most of what you do talk about -- ideas, knowledge, etc. -- are things completely private and hidden from any sense perception outside of the individual. Or, as Rand says: "Existence exists -- and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving what exists."

Neat and a childlike tautology.

She also appears absolutely ignorant of the science of her time. She talks about the absoluteness of measurement after Einstein? Even as quantum physicists alive both during the writing of her Epistemology and today were struggling with such matters as how time breaks down on a quantum level and the truly bizarre things which photons do observed and unobserved -- after Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principal, she could say these things? Because, really, the converse of her beliefs is true: accurate measurement is simply not possible much less immediate and certain.

Indeed, when she talks about measurement and mathematics, it seems that she's desperately wants to believe the universe is a fundamentally rational place. Despite entropy and chaos, she wants to believe in hard and fast rules of existence which are discernable to the human consciousness. So, of course, she must ignore Kant because he describes limits of knowledge, boundaries past which our rules of thought simply do not apply. This thought, in some way or another, has been echoes by most epistemologists since then, and most scientists, from Kitcher and his "brute facts," which defy additional reduction or logical classification to Quine's social epistemology which takes the extreme nominalist point of view, to Heisenburg's uncertainty to Feynman saying, "This is this way because it is."

Too bad she ignored all that, too bad she ignored the science of her own time and every philosopher of the post-Renaissance era.

Her theory of concepts isn't so much flawed as . . . derivative. It was as if I was reading Aristotle's Metaphysics again. Which is, ironically, another part of her problem as a philosopher -- she neither illuminates Aristotle in this regard or builds upon him. It is simple regurgitation. For those who don't know Aristotle, she takes the moderate realist view that an object's classification exists because of the traits inherent to it which we organize with similar objects possessing the same traits.

She also overtly supports the correspondence theory of language. Better logicians than Rand have attempted this and universally failed -- whereas Wittgenstein and Russell tried to defend the correspondence theory of language only to fail, Rand claims its truth without bothering to prove anything. 

She likens language to algebraic equations, saying

The relationship of concepts to their constituent particulars is the same as the relationship of algebraic symbols to numbers. In the equation 2a = a + a, any number may be substituted for the symbol "a" without affecting the truth of the equation. For instance: 2 x 5 = 5 + 5, or: 2 x 5,000,000 = 5,000,000 + 5,000,000. A concept is used as an algebraic symbol that stands for any of the arithmetical sequence of units it subsumes.

Let those who attempt to invalidate concepts by declaring that they cannot find the "manness" in men, try to invalidate algebra by declaring that they cannot find the "a-ness" in 5 or 5,000,000.

The correspondence is clear (she is more clear in other places, but this provides a clear example of how she believes language to be a system like mathematics). However, whereas truly great philosophers had to bow their collective heads in defeat when trying to prove the correspondence theory of language, Rand merely dismisses the problem by referring to an example in mathematics. Which would be fine if language were a system of formal logic -- alas, too much communication occurs outside the rules of language for that to be the case. Likewise, people who follow the rules of language to a "t" often fail to make any point at all. By simply ignoring the problem it does not go away.

In as much as Rand would like for language to be (at least potentially) logically perfect, she also seems to think the faculty of introspection is transparent -- that by studying our own hearts and minds we can infinitely reveal ourselves to ourselves.

I suppose the rationale for an Objectivist is consistent in this regard -- Rand was obsessed with "rationality." A language which exists as a game played for the fuzzy goal of communication makes the world a murkier place. Likewise, a mind which is made up of complex parts, of competing drives, of hidden recesses, of lurking traumas makes the possibility of Rand's rationality a virtual impossibility. Nevertheless, in order to make that sort of statement one has to ignore the entirety of psychological research. But since she finds it easy to ignore Kant, I wasn't surprised when she ignored Freud.

The issue I take with all of this is that Rand believes that everything that exists can be measured else it does not exist. In one sense she is right. You can invent yourself any yardstick you want to measure anything at all. If you define the measure of love as how much time a person does a specific thing then by measuring the amount of time a person spends doing things you can tell how much that person loves them. However, what Rand seems ignorant of is that no measurement is now nor will ever be completely accurate. They can be highly accurate, but the facts of quantum uncertainty make completely accurate measurement impossible. The logical certainty of knowledge that Rand desires simply is not possible.

Furthermore, speaking of emotions, even if it is possible for a person to internally measure their emotions the standardlessness of individual emotions and preferences makes that measurement useless in a scientific sense. The fact I might hate chocolate does not tell anything "real" about chocolate generally. Rand, when she attacks folks who say that "emotions can't be measured because I can measure them!" fails to recognize the meaninglessness of the measurements in question. They do no one any good at all even were we able to create "standard units of preference." The whole section where she talks about emotions is a boondoggle, an attack at mystics -- which isn't necessarily bad. What makes it bad is that it's a poor attack at mystics which misses any point at all.

It is forgivable that someone in the 18th century, flush with the Enlightenment, might adduce from science at the time that, someday, absolute certainty of measurement will be possible. However, for someone in 1966 to hang their epistemology on the notion of measurement is absurd. It does exactly what Rand says her philosophy doesn't: it runs in contradiction with the observable data. When physics, the most highly accurate of the natural scientists, writes as one of their laws that absolute certainty about anything is impossible due to an impossibility of accurate measurement, for Rand to ignore that while being an Objectivist cheerleader of the scientific method is patently stupid.

Likewise, her defense of the correspondence theory of language. By the time she wrote, brilliant people who deeply, profoundly, wanted a logical certainty to knowledge if not a physical certainty (all of whom, by the way, were aware of modern development in quantum physics) had laid correspondence to rest. The logically perfect language, to which all things which are have a symbol which accurately describes them, is as impossible precisely measuring a length of cord or the position of a photon. All knowledge is, alas, an approximation. Much knowledge is merely a transient relations we use for convenience and then discard when that convenience is gone.

By the time Rand wrote, this was all common knowledge to any undergraduate philosophy student. All of the issues she discusses, including their clear refutations -- refutations she doesn't address -- were common. She, furthermore, brings nothing new to any of the discussions. Most of her epistemology is simply a rehash of Aristotle, which is hardly a justification for an Objectivist epistemology.

Ironically, one of the goals of Rand's epistemology is justification for her morality. If she can prove, if only to herself, that the world operates according to discernibly rational principals on all levels, from the physical to the emotional, then there can be made a moral calculus. To wit, if the universe is rational, someone can be right about issues of morality -- therefore, her hideous attacks on anyone who thought differently than her can be justified on the grounds of being true. Why this is ironic is because that's Kant's categorical imperative and the book oozes a frequent loathing for Kant.

I could go on about more details of how Rand's epistemology is bad philosophy . . . but I hope I've made my point. Her epistemology is nothing more than a vehicle to justify her ideology -- her dogma. Like L. Ron Hubbard dressed up Scientology with a bunch of pseudo-scientific terms (stolen, mostly, from Freudian psychology and general semantics) to steal the validity of science for his dogma, Rand dresses up her dogma with pseudo-philosophical terms. However, from reading her epistemology it seems to follow that she is ignorant of actual epistemological studies that any junior in college would have had drilled into their head -- she adds nothing new, she refutes nothing at all, while creating a justification for her ideology. I class Objectivism in the same category that I place Scientology -- justifications for one person's ego swell to grotesque proportions and to justify their prejudices.


Am I the Only Person Who Notices Rand is an Idiot? - Ayn Rand - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - Epinions.com


----------



## Bern80

Truthseeker420 said:


> As a philosopher, Ayn Rand is a good typist.
> 
> I should have known that there wouldn't be a single idea of any importance, depth, weight or real substance in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. But I guess hope springs eternal -- that can be my only rationale for once against subjecting myself to Rand.
> 
> In short, Rand is a moron. She is a dogmatic crypto-facist whose pseudo-religion is on the same level as scientology. But whereas L. Ron Hubbard's pseudo-religion hung its hooks on techno-babble, Rand hangs her pseudo-religion on philoso-babble. The end results are much the same: small groups of highly loyal followers who never bother to seriously question the gaping holes of logic, sense and decency which riddle their movement.
> 
> But make no doubts about it, Rand is involved in pseudo-religion. How many philosophers, modern or otherwise, have their own "foundation?" Most do not need it. Their works can stand the rigors of time without prostelyzing -- or, and most other philosophers understand this, their work likely deserves to be relegated to the dust-bins of history.
> 
> Furthermore, Rand during her own lifetime struggled to control the lives of those around her, using "rationality" as a justification for emotional cruelty and power over the people she called friends. She did things like arrange the marriage of Barbara and Nathaniel Branden tho', according to Barbara, they had no attraction towards each other. Rand believed they should have an affair that was "rational," like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. Likewise, when Rand learned that Murray Rothbard's (an economist) wife was a devout Christian she demanded Murray divorce his wife because it wasn't rational to love a Christian -- Murray, to his credit, cut Rand and her psychopathic movement.
> 
> "Rationality," the catchword of Objectivists, really means mind control. Rand was the ultimate arbiter of what was right and what was wrong. Failure to live up to her ideologies resulted in that person being expelled from Rand's circle, whatever that might be. She was a ideologue of the first order, reifying words (such as "rational") to her own twisted perceptions and projecting them on people who were susceptible to such demagogery.
> 
> Rand also engaged in the classic activity of ideologues the world over: hypocrisy. I'm not talking run of the mill, pedestrian hypocrisy which it seems everyone engaged in from time to time. Rand engaged in serious, heavy duty hypocrisy.
> 
> For instance, her hatred (rational emotion, huh?) of the Soviet Union was well known. Okay. I can see that.
> 
> However, in America, she was a proponent of radical levels of personal freedom which has, in many ways, made her the philosopher of choice for Libertarians. Nevertheless, this didn't stop her from attempted censorship along with the House Un-American Activities Committee. The idea that freedom is best served via censorship is absurd because freedom of speech and the press is one of the very reasons she claimed she left Russia in the first place. But because she opposed the ideology of communism, she felt it justified in doing anything to stop them from "spreading their propaganda" -- even if it meant destroying people's freedom of expression.
> 
> Rand, alas, was about using a bunch of words to control people. She is no different than any other master of the verbal dodge, be it Hitler or Stalin or Jim Jones. The meaning of these words was never very important so long as they created the proper emotional effect. Rand's use of "rational" is just one case, as is her use of the word "freedom." Her rationality means finding conclusions Rand already possesses and her freedom is the freedom to believe as she does. Furthermore, she was willing to use the government to force people to comply to her definition of freedom -- which is a hypocritical counterexample of her moral philosophy.
> 
> This synop of Rand is pretty important to her Epistemology because she does some pretty philosophically unconscionable things. She simply ignores counterexamples which cannot be rightly ignored because the questions posed have not been answered to anyone's satisfaction. Specifically, she ignores the work of Descartes, Kant and Hume. This is simply another example of the way she twists information to support her own biases and support her own sense of infallibility. She's right and if Kant refutes her, well, she can just ignore Kant, can't she?
> 
> Alas, she does.
> 
> In fact, she ignores the accumulated wisdom of every epistemologist between Aristotle and herself. She does not hide her intentions, really, if you know what to look for. When introducing the various common epistemological stands she mentions in a numbered list extreme realists, moderate realists, nominalists and conceptualists. Then, as a parenthetical aside, she mentions the "extreme nominalist position," which she calls that modern one. Odd, isn't it, that the very position she mentions as being the modern one she relegates to obscurity. It is also the Kantian position and the one taken by people from quantum physicists to many people in the field of simulated and artificial intelligence -- not to mention a considerable number of philosophers.
> 
> To her, this is an aside. Which is consistent with her whole life. Things which she doesn't agree with, she ignores regardless of how relevant the information might be to whatever she is discussing.
> 
> She also makes vast sins of logic and sense. She says that the accuracy of the sense must be taken for granted! How can this be? Our senses are manifestly inaccurate, obscuring information which is easily deducible while hiding facts that are actually evident. There has not been an epistemologist of weight for five hundred years who has just said, "Oh, yeah, let's just take the senses for granted as being, y'know, evident." Particularly in such an exotic field as epistemology, when most of what you do talk about -- ideas, knowledge, etc. -- are things completely private and hidden from any sense perception outside of the individual. Or, as Rand says: "Existence exists -- and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving what exists."
> 
> Neat and a childlike tautology.
> 
> She also appears absolutely ignorant of the science of her time. She talks about the absoluteness of measurement after Einstein? Even as quantum physicists alive both during the writing of her Epistemology and today were struggling with such matters as how time breaks down on a quantum level and the truly bizarre things which photons do observed and unobserved -- after Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principal, she could say these things? Because, really, the converse of her beliefs is true: accurate measurement is simply not possible much less immediate and certain.
> 
> Indeed, when she talks about measurement and mathematics, it seems that she's desperately wants to believe the universe is a fundamentally rational place. Despite entropy and chaos, she wants to believe in hard and fast rules of existence which are discernable to the human consciousness. So, of course, she must ignore Kant because he describes limits of knowledge, boundaries past which our rules of thought simply do not apply. This thought, in some way or another, has been echoes by most epistemologists since then, and most scientists, from Kitcher and his "brute facts," which defy additional reduction or logical classification to Quine's social epistemology which takes the extreme nominalist point of view, to Heisenburg's uncertainty to Feynman saying, "This is this way because it is."
> 
> Too bad she ignored all that, too bad she ignored the science of her own time and every philosopher of the post-Renaissance era.
> 
> Her theory of concepts isn't so much flawed as . . . derivative. It was as if I was reading Aristotle's Metaphysics again. Which is, ironically, another part of her problem as a philosopher -- she neither illuminates Aristotle in this regard or builds upon him. It is simple regurgitation. For those who don't know Aristotle, she takes the moderate realist view that an object's classification exists because of the traits inherent to it which we organize with similar objects possessing the same traits.
> 
> She also overtly supports the correspondence theory of language. Better logicians than Rand have attempted this and universally failed -- whereas Wittgenstein and Russell tried to defend the correspondence theory of language only to fail, Rand claims its truth without bothering to prove anything.
> 
> She likens language to algebraic equations, saying
> 
> The relationship of concepts to their constituent particulars is the same as the relationship of algebraic symbols to numbers. In the equation 2a = a + a, any number may be substituted for the symbol "a" without affecting the truth of the equation. For instance: 2 x 5 = 5 + 5, or: 2 x 5,000,000 = 5,000,000 + 5,000,000. A concept is used as an algebraic symbol that stands for any of the arithmetical sequence of units it subsumes.
> 
> Let those who attempt to invalidate concepts by declaring that they cannot find the "manness" in men, try to invalidate algebra by declaring that they cannot find the "a-ness" in 5 or 5,000,000.
> 
> The correspondence is clear (she is more clear in other places, but this provides a clear example of how she believes language to be a system like mathematics). However, whereas truly great philosophers had to bow their collective heads in defeat when trying to prove the correspondence theory of language, Rand merely dismisses the problem by referring to an example in mathematics. Which would be fine if language were a system of formal logic -- alas, too much communication occurs outside the rules of language for that to be the case. Likewise, people who follow the rules of language to a "t" often fail to make any point at all. By simply ignoring the problem it does not go away.
> 
> In as much as Rand would like for language to be (at least potentially) logically perfect, she also seems to think the faculty of introspection is transparent -- that by studying our own hearts and minds we can infinitely reveal ourselves to ourselves.
> 
> I suppose the rationale for an Objectivist is consistent in this regard -- Rand was obsessed with "rationality." A language which exists as a game played for the fuzzy goal of communication makes the world a murkier place. Likewise, a mind which is made up of complex parts, of competing drives, of hidden recesses, of lurking traumas makes the possibility of Rand's rationality a virtual impossibility. Nevertheless, in order to make that sort of statement one has to ignore the entirety of psychological research. But since she finds it easy to ignore Kant, I wasn't surprised when she ignored Freud.
> 
> The issue I take with all of this is that Rand believes that everything that exists can be measured else it does not exist. In one sense she is right. You can invent yourself any yardstick you want to measure anything at all. If you define the measure of love as how much time a person does a specific thing then by measuring the amount of time a person spends doing things you can tell how much that person loves them. However, what Rand seems ignorant of is that no measurement is now nor will ever be completely accurate. They can be highly accurate, but the facts of quantum uncertainty make completely accurate measurement impossible. The logical certainty of knowledge that Rand desires simply is not possible.
> 
> Furthermore, speaking of emotions, even if it is possible for a person to internally measure their emotions the standardlessness of individual emotions and preferences makes that measurement useless in a scientific sense. The fact I might hate chocolate does not tell anything "real" about chocolate generally. Rand, when she attacks folks who say that "emotions can't be measured because I can measure them!" fails to recognize the meaninglessness of the measurements in question. They do no one any good at all even were we able to create "standard units of preference." The whole section where she talks about emotions is a boondoggle, an attack at mystics -- which isn't necessarily bad. What makes it bad is that it's a poor attack at mystics which misses any point at all.
> 
> It is forgivable that someone in the 18th century, flush with the Enlightenment, might adduce from science at the time that, someday, absolute certainty of measurement will be possible. However, for someone in 1966 to hang their epistemology on the notion of measurement is absurd. It does exactly what Rand says her philosophy doesn't: it runs in contradiction with the observable data. When physics, the most highly accurate of the natural scientists, writes as one of their laws that absolute certainty about anything is impossible due to an impossibility of accurate measurement, for Rand to ignore that while being an Objectivist cheerleader of the scientific method is patently stupid.
> 
> Likewise, her defense of the correspondence theory of language. By the time she wrote, brilliant people who deeply, profoundly, wanted a logical certainty to knowledge if not a physical certainty (all of whom, by the way, were aware of modern development in quantum physics) had laid correspondence to rest. The logically perfect language, to which all things which are have a symbol which accurately describes them, is as impossible precisely measuring a length of cord or the position of a photon. All knowledge is, alas, an approximation. Much knowledge is merely a transient relations we use for convenience and then discard when that convenience is gone.
> 
> By the time Rand wrote, this was all common knowledge to any undergraduate philosophy student. All of the issues she discusses, including their clear refutations -- refutations she doesn't address -- were common. She, furthermore, brings nothing new to any of the discussions. Most of her epistemology is simply a rehash of Aristotle, which is hardly a justification for an Objectivist epistemology.
> 
> Ironically, one of the goals of Rand's epistemology is justification for her morality. If she can prove, if only to herself, that the world operates according to discernibly rational principals on all levels, from the physical to the emotional, then there can be made a moral calculus. To wit, if the universe is rational, someone can be right about issues of morality -- therefore, her hideous attacks on anyone who thought differently than her can be justified on the grounds of being true. Why this is ironic is because that's Kant's categorical imperative and the book oozes a frequent loathing for Kant.
> 
> I could go on about more details of how Rand's epistemology is bad philosophy . . . but I hope I've made my point. Her epistemology is nothing more than a vehicle to justify her ideology -- her dogma. Like L. Ron Hubbard dressed up Scientology with a bunch of pseudo-scientific terms (stolen, mostly, from Freudian psychology and general semantics) to steal the validity of science for his dogma, Rand dresses up her dogma with pseudo-philosophical terms. However, from reading her epistemology it seems to follow that she is ignorant of actual epistemological studies that any junior in college would have had drilled into their head -- she adds nothing new, she refutes nothing at all, while creating a justification for her ideology. I class Objectivism in the same category that I place Scientology -- justifications for one person's ego swell to grotesque proportions and to justify their prejudices.
> 
> 
> Am I the Only Person Who Notices Rand is an Idiot? - Ayn Rand - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - Epinions.com



really long text book definition of projection if I ever saw one.

A voluntary review by someone who we can only identify as CPXD. You'll have to pardon me if I don't lend a lot of credibility in someone who tries to mask nothing more than disdain in some feigned objective educated critique.


----------



## assbeef

i have all ready "shrugged".
i will not create anymore.you are on your own.good luck.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

assbeef said:


> i have all ready "shrugged".
> i will not create anymore.you are on your own.good luck.



I think we'll survive without you.


----------



## Truthseeker420

[/QUOTE]
really long text book definition of projection if I ever saw one.

A voluntary review by someone who we can only identify as CPXD. You'll have to pardon me if I don't lend a lot of credibility in someone who tries to mask nothing more than disdain in some feigned objective educated critique.[/QUOTE]

Who cares if he doesn't give his name, that has nothing to do with how plausible his/her aurgument.


----------



## Bern80

really long text book definition of projection if I ever saw one.

A voluntary review by someone who we can only identify as CPXD. You'll have to pardon me if I don't lend a lot of credibility in someone who tries to mask nothing more than disdain in some feigned objective educated critique.[/QUOTE]

Who cares if he doesn't give his name, that has nothing to do with how plausible his/her aurgument.[/QUOTE]

It isn't. He didn't even review the book. He simply took it as opportunity to use his personal bias to go on a Rand bash and poorly attempted mask it as an educated critique.


----------



## Intense

Gary Cooper from "The Fountainhead".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4]YouTube - The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand)[/ame]


----------



## Intense

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1RxKW-P5V8&feature=related]YouTube - Ayn Rand - Liberty vs Socialism[/ame]


----------



## Truthseeker420

Bern80 said:


> really long text book definition of projection if I ever saw one.
> 
> A voluntary review by someone who we can only identify as CPXD. You'll have to pardon me if I don't lend a lot of credibility in someone who tries to mask nothing more than disdain in some feigned objective educated critique.



Who cares if he doesn't give his name, that has nothing to do with how plausible his/her aurgument.[/QUOTE]

It isn't. He didn't even review the book. He simply took it as opportunity to use his personal bias to go on a Rand bash and poorly attempted mask it as an educated critique.[/QUOTE]

 personal bias? how so? He used the review to say her theories are flawed and I agree with him.


----------



## Samson

Truthseeker420 said:


> YouTube - Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East Rand was a bigoted idiot.



Do you to listen, or read, anything you cut-'n-paste into your posts?


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> BarbaraHavers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.
> 
> I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
> 
> I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
> 
> Jesus. Boredom plus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.  It should be listed in the dictionary under "selfishness".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you think many right wingers love her and her book?
Click to expand...


Because it causes left-wingers to sustain a thread 50+ pages long.


----------



## Bern80

Truthseeker420 said:


> personal bias? how so? He used the review to say her theories are flawed and I agree with him.



COunter arguments are supposed to be reason yet his entire diatribe is about how rationality and objectivism are wrong. Not sure how you're going to get a credible counter argument by rejecting things like objectivity and rationality. Take those things away and your left with is persoal bias.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.


I already saw it.....on the *History Channel*.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0UYLyWJto]YouTube - THE THIRD REICH - The Rise Part 1 of 7[/ame]​


----------



## rightwinger

The movie is out.....looks like the public has shrugged


----------



## rightwinger

Atlas Shrugged review - latimes.com

Reviews are not too enthusiastic........looks like a snoozer


----------



## Mr. Shaman

rightwinger said:


> Atlas Shrugged review - latimes.com
> 
> Reviews are not too enthusiastic........looks like a sleeper


Noooooooooooooo......I think they call that a *COMA*, now.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Atlas Shrugged review - latimes.com
> 
> Reviews are not too enthusiastic........looks like a snoozer



I never yet have seen a Movie that was as good as the Book.


----------



## Maple

rightwinger said:


> Atlas Shrugged review - latimes.com
> 
> Reviews are not too enthusiastic........looks like a snoozer



You would expect that from the LA times--- a very Liberal paper in a very liberal bankrupt state,.LOL


----------



## rightwinger

Looks like Atlas Shrugged will do for the Rand Libertarians what Battlefield Earth did for Scientology. A loyal core will worship the movie while the rest of America will ignore it


----------



## rightwinger

Maple said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged review - latimes.com
> 
> Reviews are not too enthusiastic........looks like a snoozer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would expect that from the LA times--- a very Liberal paper in a very liberal bankrupt state,.LOL
Click to expand...


One star

Atlas Shrugged :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews


----------



## Maple

rightwinger said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged review - latimes.com
> 
> Reviews are not too enthusiastic........looks like a snoozer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would expect that from the LA times--- a very Liberal paper in a very liberal bankrupt state,.LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One star
> 
> Atlas Shrugged :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews
Click to expand...


Did you know that the movie " star wars," was underated by all of the critics??Many gave it a one star rating.  It turned out to be quite the success.


----------



## Maple

Maple said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would expect that from the LA times--- a very Liberal paper in a very liberal bankrupt state,.LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One star
> 
> Atlas Shrugged :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that the movie " star wars," was underated by all of the critics??Many gave it a one star rating.  It turned out to be quite the success.
Click to expand...


If Rogerebert doesn't like the movie it usually means that I will. LOL


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Atlas Shrugged will do for the Rand Libertarians what Battlefield Earth did for Scientology. A loyal core will worship the movie while the rest of America will ignore it



The lack of play and poor reviews really shouldn't surprise anyone. People revile and ignore what they don't understand. And as evidenced by the likes of you, they're are a lot of people that have mischaracterized and just plain don't get the message.


----------



## rightwinger

Maple said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would expect that from the LA times--- a very Liberal paper in a very liberal bankrupt state,.LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One star
> 
> Atlas Shrugged :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that the movie " star wars," was underated by all of the critics??Many gave it a one star rating.  It turned out to be quite the success.
Click to expand...


bet?


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Atlas Shrugged will do for the Rand Libertarians what Battlefield Earth did for Scientology. A loyal core will worship the movie while the rest of America will ignore it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of play and poor reviews really shouldn't surprise anyone. People revile and ignore what they don't understand. And as evidenced by the likes of you, they're are a lot of people that have mischaracterized and just plain don't get the message.
Click to expand...


Lets see....what movie should we see this weekend?

Atlas Shrugged or Hop?


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged review - latimes.com
> 
> Reviews are not too enthusiastic........looks like a snoozer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would expect that from the LA times--- a very Liberal paper in a very liberal bankrupt state,.LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One star
> 
> Atlas Shrugged :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews
Click to expand...


I'm glad he actually reviewed the movie as opposed to a critique of Ayn Rand. Anyone who is a fan of any literary work is going to be nervous about well a book translates to film. Whether it get's faithfully represented or the movie is just plain any good. And while I may think the book is great, it doesn't mean the move won't actually suck. Ebert thinks it sucks. He didnt' get to be one of the most well known film critics for nothing and he again at least showed some integrity by reviewing it as a movie and maybe it does indeed suck as movie. I don't take that to be a criticism of Rand or the book itself. The book is over a thousand pages and is not exactly an action packed thriller. It's fictional social commentary and that is something that may not be the most entertaining thing in the world on film.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> One star



Your brain gets one star.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your brain gets one star.
Click to expand...

You're handing-them-out, *already??!!!*






​


----------



## bripat9643

Mr. Shaman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your brain gets one star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're handing-them-out, *already??!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


So what are you implying, that I defend the holocaust?


----------



## Maple

It does not matter what the critics say, this was an independent film, hollywood is not behind it, it has been sold out in some theaters and they have extended the viewing time in my town. If it makes people think, then that's all I want. Hopefully, they will see it and have it spur enough interest to buy and read the book.


----------



## Intense

Well, I actually found a Theater by me that actually is showing the Movie and I caught the 1:00PM Showing (This Movie is Surprisingly not Widely available, at least by me). 

Other than having read the book twice, I really did not know what to expect. On the Plus side, the Nature of the Characters remained True to Form, that was a major plus. The Novel came out in 1957, this modern version takes place in 2016. It's the first installment of a Trilogy, and ends very much like the rest break (Intermission) in "Gone With the Wind", with Tara burning. I wouldn't have ended it there without giving a heads up, which I am doing right here. That's my only real criticism. I didn't notice much of anything changed, just allot omitted, nowhere near the depth of the book. I look it a a reason to inspire Someone to actually read the Book, as shocking as that suggestion might be to some. In that way, it does a great service. Personally, I think it was well done, but I am an Ayn Rand Fan. 
I don't think Progressives should see the Movie, I think they will find the concepts too threatening to their Ideology, and I don't want to see Anyone hurting Themselves over a movie. Children and Progressives should skip this one.


----------



## washamericom

Truthseeker420 said:


> As a philosopher, Ayn Rand is a good typist.
> 
> I should have known that there wouldn't be a single idea of any importance, depth, weight or real substance in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. But I guess hope springs eternal -- that can be my only rationale for once against subjecting myself to Rand.
> 
> In short, Rand is a moron. She is a dogmatic crypto-facist whose pseudo-religion is on the same level as scientology. But whereas L. Ron Hubbard's pseudo-religion hung its hooks on techno-babble, Rand hangs her pseudo-religion on philoso-babble. The end results are much the same: small groups of highly loyal followers who never bother to seriously question the gaping holes of logic, sense and decency which riddle their movement.
> 
> But make no doubts about it, Rand is involved in pseudo-religion. How many philosophers, modern or otherwise, have their own "foundation?" Most do not need it. Their works can stand the rigors of time without prostelyzing -- or, and most other philosophers understand this, their work likely deserves to be relegated to the dust-bins of history.
> 
> Furthermore, Rand during her own lifetime struggled to control the lives of those around her, using "rationality" as a justification for emotional cruelty and power over the people she called friends. She did things like arrange the marriage of Barbara and Nathaniel Branden tho', according to Barbara, they had no attraction towards each other. Rand believed they should have an affair that was "rational," like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. Likewise, when Rand learned that Murray Rothbard's (an economist) wife was a devout Christian she demanded Murray divorce his wife because it wasn't rational to love a Christian -- Murray, to his credit, cut Rand and her psychopathic movement.
> 
> "Rationality," the catchword of Objectivists, really means mind control. Rand was the ultimate arbiter of what was right and what was wrong. Failure to live up to her ideologies resulted in that person being expelled from Rand's circle, whatever that might be. She was a ideologue of the first order, reifying words (such as "rational") to her own twisted perceptions and projecting them on people who were susceptible to such demagogery.
> 
> Rand also engaged in the classic activity of ideologues the world over: hypocrisy. I'm not talking run of the mill, pedestrian hypocrisy which it seems everyone engaged in from time to time. Rand engaged in serious, heavy duty hypocrisy.
> 
> For instance, her hatred (rational emotion, huh?) of the Soviet Union was well known. Okay. I can see that.
> 
> However, in America, she was a proponent of radical levels of personal freedom which has, in many ways, made her the philosopher of choice for Libertarians. Nevertheless, this didn't stop her from attempted censorship along with the House Un-American Activities Committee. The idea that freedom is best served via censorship is absurd because freedom of speech and the press is one of the very reasons she claimed she left Russia in the first place. But because she opposed the ideology of communism, she felt it justified in doing anything to stop them from "spreading their propaganda" -- even if it meant destroying people's freedom of expression.
> 
> Rand, alas, was about using a bunch of words to control people. She is no different than any other master of the verbal dodge, be it Hitler or Stalin or Jim Jones. The meaning of these words was never very important so long as they created the proper emotional effect. Rand's use of "rational" is just one case, as is her use of the word "freedom." Her rationality means finding conclusions Rand already possesses and her freedom is the freedom to believe as she does. Furthermore, she was willing to use the government to force people to comply to her definition of freedom -- which is a hypocritical counterexample of her moral philosophy.
> 
> This synop of Rand is pretty important to her Epistemology because she does some pretty philosophically unconscionable things. She simply ignores counterexamples which cannot be rightly ignored because the questions posed have not been answered to anyone's satisfaction. Specifically, she ignores the work of Descartes, Kant and Hume. This is simply another example of the way she twists information to support her own biases and support her own sense of infallibility. She's right and if Kant refutes her, well, she can just ignore Kant, can't she?
> 
> Alas, she does.
> 
> In fact, she ignores the accumulated wisdom of every epistemologist between Aristotle and herself. She does not hide her intentions, really, if you know what to look for. When introducing the various common epistemological stands she mentions in a numbered list extreme realists, moderate realists, nominalists and conceptualists. Then, as a parenthetical aside, she mentions the "extreme nominalist position," which she calls that modern one. Odd, isn't it, that the very position she mentions as being the modern one she relegates to obscurity. It is also the Kantian position and the one taken by people from quantum physicists to many people in the field of simulated and artificial intelligence -- not to mention a considerable number of philosophers.
> 
> To her, this is an aside. Which is consistent with her whole life. Things which she doesn't agree with, she ignores regardless of how relevant the information might be to whatever she is discussing.
> 
> She also makes vast sins of logic and sense. She says that the accuracy of the sense must be taken for granted! How can this be? Our senses are manifestly inaccurate, obscuring information which is easily deducible while hiding facts that are actually evident. There has not been an epistemologist of weight for five hundred years who has just said, "Oh, yeah, let's just take the senses for granted as being, y'know, evident." Particularly in such an exotic field as epistemology, when most of what you do talk about -- ideas, knowledge, etc. -- are things completely private and hidden from any sense perception outside of the individual. Or, as Rand says: "Existence exists -- and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving what exists."
> 
> Neat and a childlike tautology.
> 
> She also appears absolutely ignorant of the science of her time. She talks about the absoluteness of measurement after Einstein? Even as quantum physicists alive both during the writing of her Epistemology and today were struggling with such matters as how time breaks down on a quantum level and the truly bizarre things which photons do observed and unobserved -- after Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principal, she could say these things? Because, really, the converse of her beliefs is true: accurate measurement is simply not possible much less immediate and certain.
> 
> Indeed, when she talks about measurement and mathematics, it seems that she's desperately wants to believe the universe is a fundamentally rational place. Despite entropy and chaos, she wants to believe in hard and fast rules of existence which are discernable to the human consciousness. So, of course, she must ignore Kant because he describes limits of knowledge, boundaries past which our rules of thought simply do not apply. This thought, in some way or another, has been echoes by most epistemologists since then, and most scientists, from Kitcher and his "brute facts," which defy additional reduction or logical classification to Quine's social epistemology which takes the extreme nominalist point of view, to Heisenburg's uncertainty to Feynman saying, "This is this way because it is."
> 
> Too bad she ignored all that, too bad she ignored the science of her own time and every philosopher of the post-Renaissance era.
> 
> Her theory of concepts isn't so much flawed as . . . derivative. It was as if I was reading Aristotle's Metaphysics again. Which is, ironically, another part of her problem as a philosopher -- she neither illuminates Aristotle in this regard or builds upon him. It is simple regurgitation. For those who don't know Aristotle, she takes the moderate realist view that an object's classification exists because of the traits inherent to it which we organize with similar objects possessing the same traits.
> 
> She also overtly supports the correspondence theory of language. Better logicians than Rand have attempted this and universally failed -- whereas Wittgenstein and Russell tried to defend the correspondence theory of language only to fail, Rand claims its truth without bothering to prove anything.
> 
> She likens language to algebraic equations, saying
> 
> The relationship of concepts to their constituent particulars is the same as the relationship of algebraic symbols to numbers. In the equation 2a = a + a, any number may be substituted for the symbol "a" without affecting the truth of the equation. For instance: 2 x 5 = 5 + 5, or: 2 x 5,000,000 = 5,000,000 + 5,000,000. A concept is used as an algebraic symbol that stands for any of the arithmetical sequence of units it subsumes.
> 
> Let those who attempt to invalidate concepts by declaring that they cannot find the "manness" in men, try to invalidate algebra by declaring that they cannot find the "a-ness" in 5 or 5,000,000.
> 
> The correspondence is clear (she is more clear in other places, but this provides a clear example of how she believes language to be a system like mathematics). However, whereas truly great philosophers had to bow their collective heads in defeat when trying to prove the correspondence theory of language, Rand merely dismisses the problem by referring to an example in mathematics. Which would be fine if language were a system of formal logic -- alas, too much communication occurs outside the rules of language for that to be the case. Likewise, people who follow the rules of language to a "t" often fail to make any point at all. By simply ignoring the problem it does not go away.
> 
> In as much as Rand would like for language to be (at least potentially) logically perfect, she also seems to think the faculty of introspection is transparent -- that by studying our own hearts and minds we can infinitely reveal ourselves to ourselves.
> 
> I suppose the rationale for an Objectivist is consistent in this regard -- Rand was obsessed with "rationality." A language which exists as a game played for the fuzzy goal of communication makes the world a murkier place. Likewise, a mind which is made up of complex parts, of competing drives, of hidden recesses, of lurking traumas makes the possibility of Rand's rationality a virtual impossibility. Nevertheless, in order to make that sort of statement one has to ignore the entirety of psychological research. But since she finds it easy to ignore Kant, I wasn't surprised when she ignored Freud.
> 
> The issue I take with all of this is that Rand believes that everything that exists can be measured else it does not exist. In one sense she is right. You can invent yourself any yardstick you want to measure anything at all. If you define the measure of love as how much time a person does a specific thing then by measuring the amount of time a person spends doing things you can tell how much that person loves them. However, what Rand seems ignorant of is that no measurement is now nor will ever be completely accurate. They can be highly accurate, but the facts of quantum uncertainty make completely accurate measurement impossible. The logical certainty of knowledge that Rand desires simply is not possible.
> 
> Furthermore, speaking of emotions, even if it is possible for a person to internally measure their emotions the standardlessness of individual emotions and preferences makes that measurement useless in a scientific sense. The fact I might hate chocolate does not tell anything "real" about chocolate generally. Rand, when she attacks folks who say that "emotions can't be measured because I can measure them!" fails to recognize the meaninglessness of the measurements in question. They do no one any good at all even were we able to create "standard units of preference." The whole section where she talks about emotions is a boondoggle, an attack at mystics -- which isn't necessarily bad. What makes it bad is that it's a poor attack at mystics which misses any point at all.
> 
> It is forgivable that someone in the 18th century, flush with the Enlightenment, might adduce from science at the time that, someday, absolute certainty of measurement will be possible. However, for someone in 1966 to hang their epistemology on the notion of measurement is absurd. It does exactly what Rand says her philosophy doesn't: it runs in contradiction with the observable data. When physics, the most highly accurate of the natural scientists, writes as one of their laws that absolute certainty about anything is impossible due to an impossibility of accurate measurement, for Rand to ignore that while being an Objectivist cheerleader of the scientific method is patently stupid.
> 
> Likewise, her defense of the correspondence theory of language. By the time she wrote, brilliant people who deeply, profoundly, wanted a logical certainty to knowledge if not a physical certainty (all of whom, by the way, were aware of modern development in quantum physics) had laid correspondence to rest. The logically perfect language, to which all things which are have a symbol which accurately describes them, is as impossible precisely measuring a length of cord or the position of a photon. All knowledge is, alas, an approximation. Much knowledge is merely a transient relations we use for convenience and then discard when that convenience is gone.
> 
> By the time Rand wrote, this was all common knowledge to any undergraduate philosophy student. All of the issues she discusses, including their clear refutations -- refutations she doesn't address -- were common. She, furthermore, brings nothing new to any of the discussions. Most of her epistemology is simply a rehash of Aristotle, which is hardly a justification for an Objectivist epistemology.
> 
> Ironically, one of the goals of Rand's epistemology is justification for her morality. If she can prove, if only to herself, that the world operates according to discernibly rational principals on all levels, from the physical to the emotional, then there can be made a moral calculus. To wit, if the universe is rational, someone can be right about issues of morality -- therefore, her hideous attacks on anyone who thought differently than her can be justified on the grounds of being true. Why this is ironic is because that's Kant's categorical imperative and the book oozes a frequent loathing for Kant.
> 
> I could go on about more details of how Rand's epistemology is bad philosophy . . . but I hope I've made my point. Her epistemology is nothing more than a vehicle to justify her ideology -- her dogma. Like L. Ron Hubbard dressed up Scientology with a bunch of pseudo-scientific terms (stolen, mostly, from Freudian psychology and general semantics) to steal the validity of science for his dogma, Rand dresses up her dogma with pseudo-philosophical terms. However, from reading her epistemology it seems to follow that she is ignorant of actual epistemological studies that any junior in college would have had drilled into their head -- she adds nothing new, she refutes nothing at all, while creating a justification for her ideology. I class Objectivism in the same category that I place Scientology -- justifications for one person's ego swell to grotesque proportions and to justify their prejudices.
> 
> Am I the Only Person Who Notices Rand is an Idiot? - Ayn Rand - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - Epinions.com



a weak review of the book/philosophy shouldn't be longer than the book itself... tell me this isn't just part 1  remember... it's a story. next time you post i'll wait till the movie comes out...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mr Liberty said:


> Funny you should mention selfishness.  I am reading a book titled the "virtue of selfishness" right now.



Excellent book - but far beyond the grasp of the looters.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthseeker420 said:


> Who cares if he doesn't give his name, that has nothing to do with how plausible his/her aurgument.



We all note that you are not capable of formulating and offering an argument. As usual, you cut & paste from a hate site.

Might as well, they do your thinking for you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Reviews are not too enthusiastic........looks like a snoozer



Wow, what a worthless and biased diatribe, precisely what I would expect from the Times.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Intense said:


> I never yet have seen a Movie that was as good as the Book.



The Abyss.

The movie is actually better than the book. Both were excellent.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Maple said:


> You would expect that from the LA times--- a very Liberal paper in a very liberal bankrupt state,.LOL



A very liberal BANKRUPT paper in a very liberal bankrupt state,.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reviews are not too enthusiastic........looks like a snoozer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what a worthless and biased diatribe, precisely what I would expect from the Times.
Click to expand...


Let's see how it does in the theaters


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention selfishness.  I am reading a book titled the "virtue of selfishness" right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent book - but far beyond the grasp of the looters.
Click to expand...


It's worse than that.  It's like sunlight to a vampire.  Looters couldn't survive if everyone believed they were entitled to keep the fruits of their labor


----------



## washamericom

if the la times liked it ... *i *would be william ayers


Bill Ayers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## uscitizen

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reviews are not too enthusiastic........looks like a snoozer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what a worthless and biased diatribe, precisely what I would expect from the Times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see how it does in the theaters
Click to expand...


It will be like the passion of Christ.  A required must see for right wingers.
As the passion was for churches.  Even those who considered movies a sin a few decades ago 

Kinda like buying Palins book.


----------



## Big Fitz

uscitizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what a worthless and biased diatribe, precisely what I would expect from the Times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how it does in the theaters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be like the passion of Christ.  A required must see for right wingers.
> As the passion was for churches.  Even those who considered movies a sin a few decades ago
> 
> Kinda like buying Palins book.
Click to expand...

Would this be like "An Inconvenient Bullshit" was for the left?  

Good.  It would be interesting to see the left meltdown if this movie won an Oscar.

Not that I think it will... but it'd be fucking funny.

No no... it's going to get the "Grand Torino" treatment if it ever came to that.


----------



## uscitizen

Big Fitz said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how it does in the theaters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be like the passion of Christ.  A required must see for right wingers.
> As the passion was for churches.  Even those who considered movies a sin a few decades ago
> 
> Kinda like buying Palins book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would this be like "An Inconvenient Bullshit" was for the left?
> 
> Good.  It would be interesting to see the left meltdown if this movie won an Oscar.
> 
> Not that I think it will... but it'd be fucking funny.
> 
> No no... it's going to get the "Grand Torino" treatment if it ever came to that.
Click to expand...


I was married at the time and got dragged to the passion.
I have never seen Inconvenient, nor any moore flics.


----------



## Agit8r

bripat9643 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention selfishness.  I am reading a book titled the "virtue of selfishness" right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent book - but far beyond the grasp of the looters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's worse than that.  It's like sunlight to a vampire.  Looters couldn't survive if everyone believed they were entitled to keep the fruits of their labor
Click to expand...


Ya! Then they would unionize


----------



## rightwinger

Big Fitz said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how it does in the theaters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be like the passion of Christ.  A required must see for right wingers.
> As the passion was for churches.  Even those who considered movies a sin a few decades ago
> 
> Kinda like buying Palins book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would this be like "An Inconvenient Bullshit" was for the left?
> 
> Good.  It would be interesting to see the left meltdown if this movie won an Oscar.
> 
> Not that I think it will... but it'd be fucking funny.
> 
> No no... it's going to get the "Grand Torino" treatment if it ever came to that.
Click to expand...


Based on the reviews looks like aa shoe in for a Razzie


----------



## bripat9643

Agit8r said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent book - but far beyond the grasp of the looters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's worse than that.  It's like sunlight to a vampire.  Looters couldn't survive if everyone believed they were entitled to keep the fruits of their labor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya! Then they would unionize
Click to expand...


No they wouldn't.  Herd animals unionize.   free men don't.

 I said "keep the fruits of your labor," not extort money from others at gunpoint.


----------



## uscitizen

bripat9643 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's worse than that.  It's like sunlight to a vampire.  Looters couldn't survive if everyone believed they were entitled to keep the fruits of their labor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya! Then they would unionize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they wouldn't.  Herd animals unionize.   free men don't.
> 
> I said "keep the fruits of your labor," not extort money from others at gunpoint.
Click to expand...


Naah just sweet talk it out of em like the TP movement.
And throwing a bit of fearmongersing does not hurt to raise contributions either.


----------



## washamericom

Big Fitz said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how it does in the theaters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be like the passion of Christ.  A required must see for right wingers.
> As the passion was for churches.  Even those who considered movies a sin a few decades ago
> 
> Kinda like buying Palins book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would this be like "An Inconvenient Bullshit" was for the left?
> 
> Good.  It would be interesting to see the left meltdown if this movie won an Oscar.
> 
> Not that I think it will... but it'd be fucking funny.
> 
> No no... it's going to get the "Grand Torino" treatment if it ever came to that.
Click to expand...



good reminder fitz, i remember the chickenlittle liberals flocking to the theatre to see "an incontinent piece of shit" movie, they came out of the film saying... oh my god the cities will be under water in fifty years, we have to control the weather !! he saved the animated frog... what was the guys name ?  AL something...


----------



## editec

Atlas Shurgged, the novel, has been changing the face of American Politics for many many decades, folks.

I like to think of it as the *Uncle Tom's Cabin* for sociopathic billionaires and their loyal minions.


----------



## Big Fitz

editec said:


> Atlas Shurgged, the novel, has been changing the face of American Politics for many many decades, folks.
> 
> I like to think of it as the *Uncle Tom's Cabin* for sociopathic billionaires and their loyal minions.


Wow... equating rich people and people who want to keep their own wealth to a bunch of Uncle Toms.

Ain't you just the economic John Brown.


----------



## washamericom

editec said:


> Atlas Shurgged, the novel, has been changing the face of American Politics for many many decades, folks.
> 
> I like to think of it as the *Uncle Tom's Cabin* for sociopathic billionaires and their loyal minions.



i agree, the movie will make it more accessable (palatable) to the consuming public. it couldn't come at a more perfect time. young people love it.


----------



## rightwinger

washamericom said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shurgged, the novel, has been changing the face of American Politics for many many decades, folks.
> 
> I like to think of it as the *Uncle Tom's Cabin* for sociopathic billionaires and their loyal minions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i agree, the movie will make it more accessable (palatable) to the consuming public. it couldn't come at a more perfect time. young people love it.
Click to expand...


He was not complimenting you

How did you like it?   It is getting killed by the critics. The movie may put your movement back 50 years

"Change the face of American politics"????


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shurgged, the novel, has been changing the face of American Politics for many many decades, folks.
> 
> I like to think of it as the *Uncle Tom's Cabin* for sociopathic billionaires and their loyal minions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i agree, the movie will make it more accessable (palatable) to the consuming public. it couldn't come at a more perfect time. young people love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was not complimenting you
> 
> How did you like it?   It is getting killed by the critics. The movie may put your movement back 50 years
> 
> "Change the face of American politics"????
Click to expand...


I thought it was very well done. Not the depth of the book, but it did capture the Spirit.


----------



## washamericom

most conservatives in the movie biz in hollywood keep their politics stealthy, why is that. ?

have we really evloved past mccarthy and blacklisting ??


----------



## The T

washamericom said:


> most conservatives in the movie biz in hollywood keep their politics stealthy, why is that. ?
> 
> have we really evloved past mccarthy and blacklisting ??


 
NOPE. This time it's in _reverse..._


----------



## washamericom

The T said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> most conservatives in the movie biz in hollywood keep their politics stealthy, why is that. ?
> 
> have we really evloved past mccarthy and blacklisting ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE. This time it's in _reverse..._
Click to expand...


 you're right T.  it blows my mind the incredible hypocrisy. one thing i'm starting to notice is the defiance with which some dims cling to the notion that they we're right in voting for obama. 
less are willing to say "i was wrong about the guy and his mysterious past, but we need a quick change". they are so desparete to be right,  that it's more important to them than leaving aside this loser we call president. 
   because of the birth certificate, whether or not the supreme court (which he so stupidly insulted), rules for him to show it or not,  this soon to be ex president will always have a harding asterisk next to his name. a sad period of american politics. 


obam's starting to use the expression "my _first_ term" .... LOL !!!  yeah right !


----------



## The T

washamericom said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> most conservatives in the movie biz in hollywood keep their politics stealthy, why is that. ?
> 
> have we really evloved past mccarthy and blacklisting ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE. This time it's in _reverse..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're right T. it blows my mind the incredible hypocrisy. one thing i'm starting to notice is the defiance with which some dims cling to the notion that they we're right in voting for obama.
> less are willing to say "i was wrong about the guy and his mysterious past, but we need a quick change". they are so desparete to be right, that it's more important to them than leaving aside this loser we call president.
> because of the birth certificate, whether or not the supreme court (which he so stupidly insulted), rules for him to show it or not, will always have a harding asterisk next to his name. a sad period of american politics.
> 
> 
> obam's starting to use the expression "my first term" ....LOL yeah right !
Click to expand...

 
The BC fight is interesting because it still goes on like stomach cramps unaddressed...

Obama could have long ago put a stop to it...but it's a diversion...KEEPS him where he is...while he laughs his ass off...

And Obama had better get used to his _only term._


----------



## Modbert

Maple said:


> Did you know that the movie " star wars," was underated by all of the critics??Many gave it a one star rating.  It turned out to be quite the success.



Ah yes, comparing the Atlas Shrugged movie to Star Wars. Because after all, one is a fantasy involving unrealistic characters that lead fans to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, and the other involves lightsabers.


----------



## Modbert

Bern80 said:


> The lack of play and poor reviews really shouldn't surprise anyone. People revile and ignore what they don't understand. And as evidenced by the likes of you, they're are a lot of people that have mischaracterized and just plain don't get the message.



Ah yes, it's everyone else's fault for just simply misunderstanding what is obviously greatness.

I too said the same thing about Batman & Robin, back when I was eight. Difference is, I grew up and realized how terrible the movie was. Hopefully one day, you too can do the same with this movie.


----------



## Modbert

Bern80 said:


> It's fictional social commentary and that is something that may not be the most entertaining thing in the world on film.



Hey kids, who wants to see a 70-page monologue translated onto the big screen? 

I will say one thing about Atlas Shrugged though, makes a great paperweight.


----------



## Modbert

bripat9643 said:


> Your brain gets one star.



No, you're a ham sandwich!


----------



## Modbert

Maple said:


> *It does not matter what the critics say, *this was an independent film, hollywood is not behind it, it has been sold out in some theaters and they have extended the viewing time in my town. If it makes people think, then that's all I want. Hopefully, they will see it and have it spur enough interest to buy and read the book.





I somehow doubt you'd be saying that if it got glowing reviews. Just sayin'.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Big Fitz said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shurgged, the novel, has been changing the face of American Politics for many many decades, folks.
> 
> I like to think of it as the *Uncle Tom's Cabin* for sociopathic billionaires and their loyal minions.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... equating rich people and people who want to keep their own wealth to a bunch of Uncle Toms.
> 
> Ain't you just the economic John Brown.
Click to expand...

I'd say the term *"useless parasites"* has more an *Aryan*-_flavor_ to it....you know....as a group _in-need_ of....


> .....*extermination*.....



....._.kinda_ like......

​


----------



## washamericom

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUayGEWM77w]YouTube - Teenagers torch cars in France as riots turn violent[/ame]


gettin to be that time of year again...  i think they're chanting....  fuck of... fuck off... fuck fuck you... i only speak a little french...


----------



## Mr. Shaman

washamericom said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shurgged, the novel, has been changing the face of American Politics for many many decades, folks.
> 
> I like to think of it as the *Uncle Tom's Cabin* for sociopathic billionaires and their loyal minions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i agree, the movie will make it more accessable (palatable) to the consuming public. it couldn't come at a more perfect time. *young people love it.*
Click to expand...

They do, huh??

Whatta _great_ marketing-scam....until the first-couple-dozen find-out there're no action-sequences, nudity or pot-smokin'.





​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

washamericom said:


> YouTube - Teenagers torch cars in France as riots turn violent
> 
> 
> gettin to be that time of year again...  i think they're chanting....  fuck of... fuck off... fuck fuck you... i only speak a little french...


Gee, I guess they haven't heard-about _Atlas Shurgged_, yet!!

Some asshole suggested they'd really *love it*.

I'm guessin' *NOT!*​


----------



## The T

washamericom said:


> YouTube - Teenagers torch cars in France as riots turn violent
> 
> 
> gettin to be that time of year again... i think they're chanting.... fuck of... fuck off... fuck fuck you... i only speak a little french...


 

 Casse-toi!


----------



## Mr. Shaman

The T said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> most conservatives in the movie biz in hollywood keep their politics stealthy, why is that. ?
> 
> have we really evloved past mccarthy and blacklisting ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE. This time it's in _reverse..._
Click to expand...

Gee.....that almost makes sense.


----------



## bripat9643

Modbert said:


> I somehow doubt you'd be saying that if it got glowing reviews. Just sayin'.



The critics are all Obama drones, so no one was expecting great revues from them.  That would be as unthinkable as a government employee who does an honest day's work.


----------



## Modbert

bripat9643 said:


> The critics are all Obama drones, so no one was expecting great revues from them.  That would be as unthinkable as a government employee who does an honest day's work.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-uV72pQKI]YouTube - Pure Imagination[/ame]


----------



## bripat9643

Modbert said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your brain gets one star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're a ham sandwich!
Click to expand...



Hey, great comeback!


----------



## Modbert

bripat9643 said:


> Hey, great comeback!



About as good as yours. Which was the point.


----------



## The T

Modbert said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, great comeback!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About as good as yours. Which was the point.
Click to expand...

 
Yours was? How so CLODBert?


----------



## The T

Mr. Shaman said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> most conservatives in the movie biz in hollywood keep their politics stealthy, why is that. ?
> 
> have we really evloved past mccarthy and blacklisting ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE. This time it's in _reverse..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee.....that almost makes sense.​
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Shaman

washamericom said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> most conservatives in the movie biz in hollywood keep their politics stealthy, why is that. ?
> 
> have we really evloved past mccarthy and blacklisting ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE. This time it's in _reverse..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're right T.  it blows my mind the incredible hypocrisy. one thing i'm starting to notice is the defiance with which some dims cling to the notion that they we're right in voting for obama.
> less are willing to say "i was wrong about the guy and his mysterious past, but we need a quick change".
Click to expand...

....As if everyone who voted for *Lil' Dumbya* did it.....



> .....with _*eyes-wide-open*_.


----------



## washamericom

very clever billboard vegas guy... !........catcalls........  whiwhew... wih whew !!!...


----------



## The T

Mr. Shaman said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOPE. This time it's in _reverse..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're right T. it blows my mind the incredible hypocrisy. one thing i'm starting to notice is the defiance with which some dims cling to the notion that they we're right in voting for obama.
> less are willing to say "i was wrong about the guy and his mysterious past, but we need a quick change".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....As if everyone who voted for *Lil' Dumbya* did it.....​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....with _*eyes-wide-open*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. Shaman

bripat9643 said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I somehow doubt you'd be saying that if it got glowing reviews. Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The critics are all Obama drones, so no one was expecting great revues from them.
Click to expand...

Yeah.....I'm sure all o' the *Dukes O' Hazzard fans* will give "Atlas Shurgged" *all-three thumbs UP!!*


----------



## washamericom

"american jagoff"   

like "american graffiti"


----------



## MikeK

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.


How do you feel about worshipping an utter hypocrite?


Excerpt:

_However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that *on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).*

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. *Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.* Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.

*In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.*_

Read the whole article here:   Michael Ford: Ayn Rand and the VIP-DIPers


----------



## washamericom

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFIMWRXWY90]YouTube - Frank Zappa - Muffin Man[/ame]


----------



## blu

cutter said:


> I love the book and am now reading it again. I hope the message of the book comes through and is not hijacked by the liberal left that seems to be too prominent in Hollywood.* Next to the bible I think this is the best book ever written*.



and this is how I know you are an idiot


----------



## bripat9643

Mr. Shaman said:


> Yeah.....I'm sure all o' the *Dukes O' Hazzard fans* will give "Atlas Shurgged" *all-three thumbs UP!!*​



Here's your typical fan of   Michael Moore movies


----------



## bripat9643

Pure horseshit.  If you could produce a quote of her saying anything you claim, you would have posted it.  As always, the sleazy lying liberal makes up things he claim the people they hate said.



MikeK said:


> But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.[/b] Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.
> 
> *In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.[/i]*
> 
> Read the whole article here:   Michael Ford: Ayn Rand and the VIP-DIPers


----------



## Mr. Shaman

bripat9643 said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....I'm sure all o' the *Dukes O' Hazzard fans* will give "Atlas Shurgged" *all-three thumbs UP!!*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your typical fan of   Michael Moore movies...
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xlpcDnr7eM]YouTube - Keith Olbermann - Wendell Potter Apologizes To Michael Moore[/ame]






 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## Mr. Shaman

MikeK said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about worshipping an utter hypocrite?
> 
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> _However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that *on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).*
> 
> As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. *Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."
> 
> But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.* Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.
> 
> *In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.*_
> 
> Read the whole article here:   Michael Ford: Ayn Rand and the VIP-DIPers
Click to expand...


*Ayn Randers:*



> *Terminally
> WRONG**!!!*








 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .​


----------



## The T

Mr. Shaman said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel about worshipping an utter hypocrite?
> 
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> _However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that *on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).*_
> 
> _As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. *Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."*_
> 
> _*But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.* Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit._
> 
> _*In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.*_
> 
> Read the whole article here: Michael Ford: Ayn Rand and the VIP-DIPers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ayn Randers:*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Terminally*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG*​*!!!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .​
Click to expand...





​


----------



## JimH52

Yeah, and "W" was going to sink the recovering alcoholic in the WH.  Right...


----------



## The T

JimH52 said:


> Yeah, and "W" was going to sink the recovering alcoholic in the WH. Right...


 

*PSYCHOBABBLE*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7RbZNT5A2A]YouTube - The Alan Parsons Project - Psychobabble[/ame]


----------



## Intense

Wow! The Unwashed are really coming out to bash this Movie! Maybe People here need to disclose whether or not they either saw it or intend to see it. How does one Review what they truly have no knowledge of? Why not just say the concepts are too complex for you and move on? Individualism V.S. Collectivism. Either you matter or you don't. If you choose not to matter, I encourage you to not be a Hypocrite and find another Forum.  Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.


----------



## Intense

Something is terribly wrong. The Dow has dropped below 4,000, gasoline (when available) costs $37.50 a gallon, the nation's infrastructure is deteriorating, businessmen are wearing sandwich boards asking for work. Government's response to the enervated economy is to impose even more regulations and forced wealth-redistribution on already-highly regulated business and industry. A gray palpable pall hangs over the land. Meanwhile, the nation's most productive citizens begin to disappear voluntarily, one by one. But why? The question is answered by another question as mysterious as the disappearances themselves: "Who is John Galt?"

The movie Atlas Shrugged: Part I, set in the year 2016 and adapted from Ayn Rand&#8217;s famous novel published in 1957, accomplishes much of what the author intended in her book: a beautiful, poignant, painful expression of the conflict between egalitarianism and the right to own private property. The story is well known, as the novel was noted recently by the Library of Congress &#8220;as the most influential book read in America,&#8221; right behind the Bible itself. Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) owns a struggling railroad company that is being sabotaged by her brother; Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler) has developed a metal for railroad rails that is far superior to anything on the market; and their attempt to do business for their mutual benefit is being thwarted by all manner of government agencies and crony capitalists who see the threat to their own businesses if Dagny and Hank succeed.  

Although the movie was produced under nearly impossible financial and timing circumstances (a paltry $10 million budget and a deadline to start filming just two days before the producer&#8217;s option expired), the actors give more flesh and vitality to their parts than Rand portrayed in her book. Stiff cardboard silhouettes in the novel, the movie's Dagny and Hank take on fullness of character, even when employing many of Rand&#8217;s lines that were intended for print. Rand was able to develop her objectivist philosophy by taking time in her book to explore, expand, and preach the stark difference between the freedom of the entrepreneur and the dull, drab weariness of the fascist economy that destroys opportunity, wealth, and freedom while claiming to &#8220;equalize opportunity&#8221; for everyone. Movie director Paul Johannson did not have the freedom to develop Rand's philosophy on screen, but trappings are there for viewers willing to watch and listen closely &#8212; and of course think.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/movies/7139-atlas-shrugged-the-movie


----------



## The T

Intense said:


> Wow! The Unwashed are really coming out to bash this Movie! Maybe People here need to disclose whether or not they either saw it or intend to see it. How does one Review what they truly have no knowledge of? Why not just say the concepts are too complex for you and move on? Individualism V.S. Collectivism. *Either you matter or you don't.* If you choose not to matter, I encourage you to not be a Hypocrite and find another Forum.  Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.


 
Most Don't. MOST are brainless rubes that FAIL in life.


----------



## washamericom

The T said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! The Unwashed are really coming out to bash this Movie! Maybe People here need to disclose whether or not they either saw it or intend to see it. How does one Review what they truly have no knowledge of? Why not just say the concepts are too complex for you and move on? Individualism V.S. Collectivism. *Either you matter or you don't.* If you choose not to matter, I encourage you to not be a Hypocrite and find another Forum.  Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Don't. MOST are brainless rubes that FAIL in life.
Click to expand...


another movie could be 

"the transparet president that lies about his past"

first african born president fools the world...


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Intense said:


> Wow! The Unwashed are really coming out to bash this Movie! Maybe People here need to disclose whether or not they either saw it or intend to see it. *How does one Review what they truly have no knowledge of?*


....Like *Teabaggers* & *Health Care Reform*, right??

​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Gee, whatta _surprise_......all-of-a-sudden, *Porky Limbaugh* is an *Ayn Rander* as *well!!*



> "Rush Limbaugh has pulled out the shovel to heap abuse on supporters of President Barack Obama. Using language a bit harsh even for Rush, *he called backers "savages" and "walking human debris."* Obama's base *"is made up of people even more vile than he is,"* Limbaugh barked. *"You've got a lot of walking human debris on the Democrat base side.* But *even lefty debris, apparently, can get angry, and the garbage is sick and tired of their man in the White House*", snorts Rush."
> 
> *Hatin' With Reichsmarschall Porky**!!*​


----------



## Intense

Mr. Shaman said:


> Gee, whatta _surprise_......all-of-a-sudden, *Porky Limbaugh* is an *Ayn Rander* as *well!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rush Limbaugh has pulled out the shovel to heap abuse on supporters of President Barack Obama. Using language a bit harsh even for Rush, *he called backers "savages" and "walking human debris."* Obama's base *"is made up of people even more vile than he is,"* Limbaugh barked. *"You've got a lot of walking human debris on the Democrat base side.* But *even lefty debris, apparently, can get angry, and the garbage is sick and tired of their man in the White House*", snorts Rush."
> 
> *Hatin' With Reichsmarschall Porky**!!*​
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0&feature=related]YouTube - 7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes[/ame]


----------



## Agit8r

It's refreshing that Atheism is being saluted by the right

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ]YouTube - Ayn Rand on Religion[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> 
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



How do I like us now??

A poorly produced movie that nobody but libertarians go to see is going to "Change the face of American politics"???

Should have gone direct to video with it


----------



## Intense

Agit8r said:


> It's refreshing that Atheism is being saluted by the right
> 
> YouTube - Ayn Rand on Religion



An Atheist that Recognizes Unalienable Rights, Conscience, Principle, and Virtue, is welcome around me anytime. The translation to me is Her understanding of God or the Forces of Creation was a personal and private matter to her, I respect that. Whether her issue was what God Is, or whether the issue was not giving a rats ass about what others decreed God is, is between her, her conscience, and God. What is your motive??? What is driving you to dishonor her???


----------



## blu

Intense said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, whatta _surprise_......all-of-a-sudden, *Porky Limbaugh* is an *Ayn Rander* as *well!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rush Limbaugh has pulled out the shovel to heap abuse on supporters of President Barack Obama. Using language a bit harsh even for Rush, *he called backers "savages" and "walking human debris."* Obama's base *"is made up of people even more vile than he is,"* Limbaugh barked. *"You've got a lot of walking human debris on the Democrat base side.* But *even lefty debris, apparently, can get angry, and the garbage is sick and tired of their man in the White House*", snorts Rush."
> 
> *Hatin' With Reichsmarschall Porky**!!*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0&feature=related]YouTube - 7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes[/ame]
Click to expand...


its always an intelligent conversation when shaman and intense are trading youtube videos


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> 
> 
> it looks good, no, great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do I like us now??
> 
> A poorly produced movie that nobody but libertarians go to see is going to "Change the face of American politics"???
> 
> Should have gone direct to video with it
Click to expand...


I just hope they follow through with the rest of the Trilogy. I don't think it was poorly produced. Though I think certain mind sets are going to have a big problem with it. That is both expected and understandable. For those in that mindset, don't torture yourself, skip it.


----------



## Agit8r

Intense said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's refreshing that Atheism is being saluted by the right
> 
> YouTube - Ayn Rand on Religion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Atheist that Recognizes Unalienable Rights, Conscience, Principle, and Virtue, is welcome around me anytime. The translation to me is Her understanding of God or the Forces of Creation was a personal and private matter to her, I respect that. Whether her issue was what God Is, or whether the issue was not giving a rats ass about what others decreed God is, is between her, her conscience, and God. What is your motive??? What is driving you to dishonor her???
Click to expand...


That's fine.  Just noting that her idea of "virtue" is diametrically opposite that of Jesus

just sayin


----------



## Quantum Windbag

YouTube - Atlas Is Shrugging


Ever wonder why this stupid movie makes sense now?


----------



## rightwinger

Where's the buzz??

For the most earth shattering movie in history.....nobody cares


----------



## Immanuel

cutter said:


> I love the book and am now reading it again. I hope the message of the book comes through and is not hijacked by the liberal left that seems to be too prominent in Hollywood. Next to the bible I think this is the best book ever written.



I'm reading it for the first time.  I'm about a third of the way through it.  I am enjoying it although I had expected to read the first fifty pages and then to put it down in boredom never to be picked up again.

As for the thought of a liberal slant to the movie... I expect it.  I expect Wesley Mouch to be made out to be the hero Dagny Taggart to be made out to be an evil bitch.

Immie


----------



## code1211

In California, right now, Atlas Shrugged is playing out as one company after another moves to anywhere else they can find.

The reason this book has been a best seller for 50 years is that it hits a resonant tone for millions of people every year.

Illinois will be next on the hit parade.  Their solution to their fiscal woes is not to re-examine their big spending but is rather to increase the tax rates.  That sucking sound you hear is all of their jobs going elsewhere.

You're right.  Atlas Shrugs today.


----------



## rightwinger

Atlas yawned


----------



## rightwinger

Atlas shrugged.......America yawned


----------



## QUENTIN

This may have been covered somewhere in the preceding 55 pages, but for the record it's not a Hollywood movie. 

This wasn't produced or distributed by any Hollywood studio. It was financed by John Aglialoro, a fitness equipment mogul and investor based out of Massachusetts, written and directed by people known for independently produced straight-to-DVD horror movies, and aside from minor roles for character actors Jon Polito and Michael Lerner who haven't had a major role in a Hollywood film in 15 years is filled with a cast and crew of relative unknowns.

The rights to the novel were optioned almost 2 decades ago and Aglialoro rushed the film intro production mere days before they expired and after failing to attract Hollywood talent for years. It's being distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures, a small Utah-based company that describes itself as "distributors for hire" and is best known for releasing Christian-themed films Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and The End of The Spear and marketing directly to Evangelical churches.

Not making any judgments, just setting the record straight for those referring to this as a Hollywood film or production or release; it isn't.


----------



## QUENTIN

Weekend box-office numbers have been released by the way.

The film opened in 14th place, bringing in 1.6 million dollars. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed opened in three-times as many theaters with roughly the same marketing and made about double that money, going on to take in 7.7 million total. This film seems set to make around that much or perhaps do more like Left Behind's business on the order of 4.2 million due to screening in only a few hundred theaters. Most box office analysts predict it will not make back its $10 million production cost, at least not in domestic theatrical release.

For comparison, the top movie of the weekend played in 10 times as many theaters, made double the per-screen average, and took in 40 million dollars domestic added to its $168 million worldwide gross. That's not even considered an especially impressive opening weekend and certainly that film, Rio, will not be changing the face of anything. Shrugged is not currently scheduled to be released in theaters internationally.


----------



## William Joyce

Rand and her business is fun stuff...   good conservative jumping-off point, actually, for "cool kids" who shy away from the Moral Majority and what-not.  A lot of racially conscious whites started their political thinking that way.  But ultimately, it's a dead end.  You can't have libertarianism and 50 million Mexicans.  Won't work.


----------



## Mr Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Atlas yawned



Are the needs or miseries of one human being a mortgage on the freedom of another?  The misery caused by your Marxist ideology is increasing.  This is not a DEM-GOP debate.  There are socialist in both parties.  You do not value individual liberty.  These tea party people you complain about---You created them.


----------



## rightwinger

Mr Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas yawned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the needs or miseries of one human being a mortgage on the freedom of another?  The misery caused by your Marxist ideology is increasing.  This is not a DEM-GOP debate.  There are socialist in both parties.  You do not value individual liberty.  These tea party people you complain about---You created them.
Click to expand...


What individual liberty do you not have?


----------



## konradv

What is Atlas shrugging about?  Income studies have shown that the top earners have been gaining ground, while the middle has stayed the same or fallen back.


----------



## rightwinger

konradv said:


> What is Atlas shrugging about?  Income studies have shown that the top earners have been gaining ground, while the middle has stayed the same or fallen back.



What it is about is that if we do not allow the wealthy to monopolize the wealth we will turn into an "Atlas Shrugged" society

Its in a low budget movie so it must be true....John Galt says so


----------



## whitehall

There is no Atlas. The movie based on the book is a work of fiction. Lefties love it because they can use emotion to judge political events. The Country is going down hill because we have a socialist leader who thinks the future is in windmills while 10% of citizens are unemployed and we are giving our treasure to oil producing countries.


----------



## QUENTIN

Enough reviews are now in that the film has also been ranked by movie review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

It currently stands at 8% positive, with 1 positive review, 1 mixed, and 22 negative including some from those who identify as fans of the book. That makes it the worst reviewed film released so far in 2011 and puts it on a par with many of the films in Rotten Tomatoes "Worst Movies of the Decade" list. 

User ratings on the site have been flooded with an unusual influx of first-time visitors (perhaps due to a Twitter and Objectivist network online campaign) and the film stands at 85% fresh according to them. IMDb has seen a similar phenomenon with the majority of user reviews so far coming from first-time commenters and a strikingly bizarre vote distribution. Females ages 18-29 for instance give the film an average rating of 3.2 while users registered as females under 18 have an average perfect score of 10. With 245 ratings of 10 and 85 of 1, the film currently holds a 6.7.

Film critic and box-office guru Scott Tobias humorously reports that "the numbers don&#8217;t bode well for Part II and Part III, unless its financiers are feeling altruistic&#8212;which we know they most definitely are not." Given the film's meager box-office, it seems unlikely the second or third installments will ever see production or if they do, will likely be lower-budget and released direct-to-DVD like the Left Behind sequels.

Is this disappointing for those who have seen the film or hoped it would be more of a phenomenon?


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Yeah, the reviews are terrible.  Ain't It Cool News panned the sucker, and they're usually pretty kind to small budget films.

It sounds like from the reviews that the biggest issue is that they've taken a book with a strong plot and tried to make it a trilogy.  Unfortunately, to make a trilogy work, each film has to work on it's own.  Especially the first one.  It sounds like that didn't happen here.

I'll probably watch it when it gets to TV.  I'm not going to see it in the theaters as with 2 very young kids at home, getting to the movies is a pretty big deal.  Captain America and Harry Potter are much higher up on my to do list.


----------



## Big Fitz

QUENTIN said:


> Enough reviews are now in that the film has also been ranked by movie review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.
> 
> It currently stands at 8% positive, with 1 positive review, 1 mixed, and 22 negative including some from those who identify as fans of the book. That makes it the worst reviewed film released so far in 2011 and puts it on a par with many of the films in Rotten Tomatoes "Worst Movies of the Decade" list.
> 
> User ratings on the site have been flooded with an unusual influx of first-time visitors (perhaps due to a Twitter and Objectivist network online campaign) and the film stands at 85% fresh according to them. IMDb has seen a similar phenomenon with the majority of user reviews so far coming from first-time commenters and a strikingly bizarre vote distribution. Females ages 18-29 for instance give the film an average rating of 3.2 while users registered as females under 18 have an average perfect score of 10. With 245 ratings of 10 and 85 of 1, the film currently holds a 6.7.
> 
> Film critic and box-office guru Scott Tobias humorously reports that "the numbers don&#8217;t bode well for Part II and Part III, unless its financiers are feeling altruistic&#8212;which we know they most definitely are not." Given the film's meager box-office, it seems unlikely the second or third installments will ever see production or if they do, will likely be lower-budget and released direct-to-DVD like the Left Behind sequels.
> 
> Is this disappointing for those who have seen the film or hoped it would be more of a phenomenon?


I'll say this much.  There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large.  If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Intense said:


> I thought it was very well done. Not the depth of the book, but it did capture the Spirit.



The production values were good, the acting was good. The material was a bit dry for the big screen. 

I liked it, but I loved the book. I suspect this will really come into it's own on Netflix.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Modbert said:


> Hey kids, who wants to see a 70-page monologue translated onto the big screen?
> 
> I will say one thing about Atlas Shrugged though, makes a great paperweight.



Those who are literate have a better use for it.

You really wouldn't understand.


----------



## rightwinger




----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough reviews are now in that the film has also been ranked by movie review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.
> 
> It currently stands at 8% positive, with 1 positive review, 1 mixed, and 22 negative including some from those who identify as fans of the book. That makes it the worst reviewed film released so far in 2011 and puts it on a par with many of the films in Rotten Tomatoes "Worst Movies of the Decade" list.
> 
> User ratings on the site have been flooded with an unusual influx of first-time visitors (perhaps due to a Twitter and Objectivist network online campaign) and the film stands at 85% fresh according to them. IMDb has seen a similar phenomenon with the majority of user reviews so far coming from first-time commenters and a strikingly bizarre vote distribution. Females ages 18-29 for instance give the film an average rating of 3.2 while users registered as females under 18 have an average perfect score of 10. With 245 ratings of 10 and 85 of 1, the film currently holds a 6.7.
> 
> Film critic and box-office guru Scott Tobias humorously reports that "the numbers dont bode well for Part II and Part III, unless its financiers are feeling altruisticwhich we know they most definitely are not." Given the film's meager box-office, it seems unlikely the second or third installments will ever see production or if they do, will likely be lower-budget and released direct-to-DVD like the Left Behind sequels.
> 
> Is this disappointing for those who have seen the film or hoped it would be more of a phenomenon?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say this much.  There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large.  If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.
Click to expand...

..

... or maybe the movie just sucks.  Leave it to some to turn it into a conspiracy!!!  Trying to get the forum changed on this thread?!?!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Agit8r said:


> It's refreshing that Atheism is being saluted by the right



It's desperation that you think that matters.


----------



## Uncensored2008

blu said:


> its always an intelligent conversation when shaman and intense are trading youtube videos



I don't know Intense.

But Shaman is THE most worthless poster on the board. I've yet to see even a single post from him that was worth reading.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey kids, who wants to see a 70-page monologue translated onto the big screen?
> 
> I will say one thing about Atlas Shrugged though, makes a great paperweight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are literate have a better use for it.
> 
> You really wouldn't understand.
Click to expand...


The literate immediately identify it as one of the worst novels ever.  Character development is an important part of any well-crafted novel.  Atlas Shrugged doesn't fit into that company, because it doesn't contain a single fully realized character, merely caricatures.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Atlas shrugged.......America yawned



And fascists like "rightwinger" hid under their bed.....


----------



## QUENTIN

Big Fitz said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough reviews are now in that the film has also been ranked by movie review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.
> 
> It currently stands at 8% positive, with 1 positive review, 1 mixed, and 22 negative including some from those who identify as fans of the book. That makes it the worst reviewed film released so far in 2011 and puts it on a par with many of the films in Rotten Tomatoes "Worst Movies of the Decade" list.
> 
> User ratings on the site have been flooded with an unusual influx of first-time visitors (perhaps due to a Twitter and Objectivist network online campaign) and the film stands at 85% fresh according to them. IMDb has seen a similar phenomenon with the majority of user reviews so far coming from first-time commenters and a strikingly bizarre vote distribution. Females ages 18-29 for instance give the film an average rating of 3.2 while users registered as females under 18 have an average perfect score of 10. With 245 ratings of 10 and 85 of 1, the film currently holds a 6.7.
> 
> Film critic and box-office guru Scott Tobias humorously reports that "the numbers don&#8217;t bode well for Part II and Part III, unless its financiers are feeling altruistic&#8212;which we know they most definitely are not." Given the film's meager box-office, it seems unlikely the second or third installments will ever see production or if they do, will likely be lower-budget and released direct-to-DVD like the Left Behind sequels.
> 
> Is this disappointing for those who have seen the film or hoped it would be more of a phenomenon?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say this much.  There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large.  If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.
Click to expand...


Well, the reviews on Rottentomatoes are from well-established movie critics who write hundreds of reviews a year for movie publications, mainstream websites and newspapers, not part of some leftist conspiracy. The box-office figures are reported from movie theaters across the country that were booked to show the film and these numbers are reliable and accurate every week for every film that comes out, no reason to think there's anything foul there. The theaters and distributors want the movie to be a hit, so there's no sense in underreporting. 

As for online memes, so far the opposite of what you're saying is true. I'm sure there are some liberals or people who don't like Rand that haven't seen the movie and are voting it down, but that's seems scattershot and the numbers at IMDb and RT of negative reviews are quite small as a percentage (and most of those come from established users). However there are coordinated online campaigns at objectivistforum.com and followers of the Atlas Shrugged movie on twitter to flood Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb with positive reviews and the vast majority of ratings on the former site and user reviews on the latter are coming from brand new, first-time registrants (with some weird anomolies, like that women voters 18+ tend to give it poor reviews but every almost single new user registered as a woman under 18 gave it a 10). So while it's certainly conceivable that anti-Randians might launch such a campaign, it's demonstrated that pro-Randians already and actually have. So the scale-tilting is by far in favor of the movie from people with a vested ideological interest in its success not the other way around.

Similar campaigns were launched to flood the Modern Library's online poll of the 20th century's greatest books by Objectivists and Scientologists, leading to 4 of Rand's books and 3 of L. Ron Hubbard's finishing in the top ten including the top three spots. http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas shrugged.......America yawned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And fascists like "rightwinger" hid under their bed.....
Click to expand...



The Libertarians are coming...the Libertarians are coming


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> The literate immediately identify it as one of the worst novels ever.



That would be "mindless idealogues," not the "literate."



> Character development is an important part of any well-crafted novel.



That depends on the purpose of the novel. 

"Sicko" had no character development, but I'll bet you embraced every lie as a revelation from god (Barack Obama) himself..



> Atlas Shrugged doesn't fit into that company, because it doesn't contain a single fully realized character, merely caricatures.



Yawn...

A mindless fascist attacking Rand - how unique...


----------



## rightwinger

Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week

Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope
"i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic.".........Nope

 "how do you like us now. " ....... Same old Rand Libertarians overworshipping her novel. Kind of like Scientologists


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week
> 
> Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope



The movie will make money. It will do well on Netflix and DVD.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The literate immediately identify it as one of the worst novels ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be "mindless idealogues," not the "literate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Character development is an important part of any well-crafted novel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends on the purpose of the novel.
> 
> "Sicko" had no character development, but I'll bet you embraced every lie as a revelation from god (Barack Obama) himself..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged doesn't fit into that company, because it doesn't contain a single fully realized character, merely caricatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn...
> 
> A mindless fascist attacking Rand - how unique...
Click to expand...


How about telling us what you think, instead of telling me what I think?  You're no psychic by a long shot.  As for "Sicko", that was a documentary not a novel!!!  In other words, your point is worthless.  Of course, there are other novels without character development, but they like "Shrugged" are usually put in the "Bad" category, regardless of their purpose.  This work is simply a political screed masquerading as a novel.


----------



## QUENTIN

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week
> 
> Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The movie will make money. It will do well on Netflix and DVD.
Click to expand...


Perhaps but I'm not sure what you're basing that on.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which was also an independently financed movie distributed by the same specialty house and targeting a similarly small but devoted base (but a much, much larger one - Creationist Evangelicals make up nearly a third of the country, Objectivists and Libertarians less than 10%) made nearly twice as much money in its opening weekend, finishing with 7.7 million total gross domestic box-office.

On DVD, it made 1.85 million which is respectable for a small, niche movie like that but far from being considered a success. Its budget was only 3.5 million so it wound up in the black, but Atlas Shrugged's budget is $10 million and that doesn't take into account marketing costs.

An American Carol, a conservative-themed and targeted film which had some name actors (Kelsey Grammer, Jon Voight, Dennis Hopper, Leslie Nielsen) and a successful, well-known director (David Zucker), twice the budget of Atlas Shrugged, a much larger and more powerful distribution company,  substantially more advertising and campaigning including appeals to see it from the nation's most popular conservative pundits who reach an audience of tens of millions:



> An American Carol was strongly advertised by notable Republicans and conservative personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin. On October 3, 2008, actors Kevin Farley and Kelsey Grammer appeared on the Fox News program The O'Reilly Factor to promote their film, in which show host Bill O'Reilly made a guest appearance. An American Carol has also been described by newspapers such as the Dallas Morning News as being "for the right wing".The American Conservative reported, "The movie has been promoted by bloggers on National Review Online. The Leadership Institute, an activist group that maintains contact with College Republicans nationwide, urged its charges to see the movie on opening weekend, even handing out tickets to its interns."



Opened on five times as many screens, grossed nearly three times the opening weekend of Atlas Shrugged, and finished with 7 million in theaters then made 2.4 million on DVD, which again isn't terrible but is far from a success and it failed to make back its $20 million budget.

Both of those movies had appeal to a broader audience (Creationist and Conservatives generally, not just a small subset of the latter), greater exposure (in terms of advertising both free and paid, number of theaters playing, etc), more name talent, and all the things a film wants going for it to be successful and neither of them made much money on DVD.

If Atlas Shrugged does as expected and finishes with less than the 7 million theatrical gross of Expelled and American Carol, which both played in many more theaters and made substantially more in their opening weekends, then there's no reason to believe it would make back its money on DVD given the precedents in the market.

As for Netflix, they make deals with studios for access to all of their catalogue without restrictions for a fixed rate rather than paying movie by movie. Given that Atlas Shrugged doesn't have studio backing, they will likely work out a deal like they do with most small independent features to be streaming on Watch Instantly where there isn't a percentage for each rental/viewing but an upfront price for the right to carry it streaming. That price is negotiated and determined by the box-office success of the film, which predicts revenue in post-theatrical distribution. In other words, if it doesn't make much money in theaters, it won't get much money from Netflix for the right to rent it. Certainly well under a million dollars which would still make it difficult for the film to make back its money. 

Every expert I've read or encountered on indie financing and distribution (and I work with a few) is predicting the film will not break even.


----------



## rightwinger

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week
> 
> Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The movie will make money. It will do well on Netflix and DVD.
Click to expand...


Oh I get it.....any movie that makes a profit changes the face of American politics

Is Obama still afraid of it?


----------



## QUENTIN

Big Fitz said:


> I'll say this much.  There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large.  If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.



From a devoted Rand fan and filmmaker: 



> Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged' railed against mediocrity, but the filmmakers of 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' seem to revel in it as they've turned a powerful lightening rod of a story into the exact thing that Rand fought against.
> 
> 'Atlas Shrugged' has been one of those books that people either praise as having had a major effect on their lives or discount as nothing more than propaganda. I fall into the former as I first read the book in my early 20's and could relate to it's base message. I didn't agree with everything in Ayn Rand's philosophy, but it formed a nice base. Over the years I've given out countless copies of the books to friends who wound up saying that it was one of the best gifts they've ever gotten. So, when news first hit that the film version of the book would finally be coming out, I was rather hopeful since Rand seemed to have had foresight into what was coming for our country.
> 
> At first when the Baldwin's took on the film and were pushing out Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to star, I knew the film would never get made. It was becoming way to big to handle and do in a two hour film. Then when the trailer for 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' hit this past February, I was hoping that maybe it was just one of those badly cut trailers, but deep down, it was obvious what we were in for. The time couldn't have been better for a movie of this magnitude to hit and be a success as the story has some great cinematic moments, plus it could expose Rand to an entirely new generation that would have never paid much attention.
> 
> After seeing 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1', this will never happen, and the people behind this film claiming to want to honor Rand's legacy have just crapped all over it. The sad part about this is that Rand loved the movies. As a child in communist Russia, American films were her escape and propelled her to want to better her life. She was alive to see what King Vidor attempted to do with 'The Fountainhead', but with the studio jumping in, it still turned into more of a melodramatic film than what was intended. I'm so glad Rand isn't around to see that her most influential book, which still sells over 400,000 copies each year, be turned into the exact type of thing that she railed against; mediocre. Even the most diehard Rand fan will have trouble sitting through this film, and only the most loyal will admit that her most famous book has been violated in its message. In contrast with 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' , 'The Fountainhead' movie looks absolutely brilliant with a stellar cast of Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. Atlas doesn't even come close to that type of talent.
> 
> This may sound harsh, but as a very big fan of the book, I feel very offended by the filmmakers lack of respect for the source material which is rich with big movie moments. Producer John Aglialoro was about to lose the rights to 'Atlas Shrugged', which he'd had for 18 years, and it's obvious this has been a passion project for him as he's worked to get it into the right creative hands. Those are things that I understand and respect that, but what I've lost respect for is the fact that in a desperate attempt to hold on to the rights, which would have expired last June if production didn't start on the film, he pulled together a mediocre crew to get something made, quality be damned. I've had projects that I have fought for, but the idea of just putting out something mediocre to hold on to them never crossed my mind. Ayn Rand's books taught me that. Mr. Aglialoro and crew have become Peter Keatings (from The Fountainhead) who've sold out to get what they wanted. To me, that is a true crime to Ayn Rand's memory.
> 
> What they've made is a low budget film that was shot in 5 weeks on a $10 million budget and looks every bit the part. Just nine days before production One Tree Hill star Paul Johansson replaced Steven Polk as director. I'm confused as to why Aglialoro couldn't renegotiate the rights with the Rand estate who gave their permission for this film to be made arguing that a subpar film would result from having to work under those restrictions. That's very much the plotline of 'The Fountainhead' with Howard Rourke.
> 
> Now on to the film itself. 'Atlas Shrugged' is about a strong willed woman (Dagny Taggert) who is trying to save her transcontinental railroad from disaster set by laws and regulations threatening to end entrepreneurs in the United States. She's also fighting a man who is stealing away the men and women who have kept the motor of the world running, and it's slowly winding down as she continues struggling to keep it going. Just that alone shows that in the hands of a good production team, this could've been a fun action packed movie that would be both timely and show Hollywood that something fresh can make money like Chris Nolan's 'Inception'.
> 
> What we get with Johansson's 'Atlas Shrugged' is a movie set in 2016 where railroads rule. I don't get why they didn't just set this film back to a time when railroads truly did rule the country, but that would have cost more money so we can only imagine how much worse it would have looked. The cast includes: Graham Beckel (Brokeback Mountain) in the role of oil magnate Ellis Wyatt; Edi Gathegi (from the Twilight movies) in the part of Dagnys loyal lieutenant Eddie Willers; and two veterans of Coen brothers films, Michael Lerner and Jon Polito, to play political fixer Wesley Mouch and the collusive corporate sleaze Orren Boyle. For the key roles, the production made a major misstep with Taylor Schilling (Mercy) and Grant Bowler (True Blood) as Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon. (Fay Dunaway was once attached for the Dagny role and would have been perfect casting, but no such luck this time.)
> 
> The lack of direction in this film doesn't give anyone in the cast much to do so their speech sounds more like comic book speak which only diminishes the message they're trying to give. The lack of chemistry between Schilling and Bowler is just so bad that when they finally have their sexy scene, it reminded me of when Vin Diesel had a kissing scene in 'XXX' that looked like he couldn't wait for it to be over.
> 
> Even the 'Who Is John Galt' question is lost in all this as anyone unfamiliar with the book will be wondering why it even matters, not to mention that this film probably won't get picked up by even Lifetime on cable.
> 
> The filmmakers knew that the stakes were very high in getting this film made, and they blown it in the worst way possible where they only look like scavengers attempting to cash in on Ayn Rand's legacy and nothing else. Even on a tight budget (I've worked on plenty of those types of films), there is no excuse to strip a book with so much material of its essence. I understand the filmmakers thinking that they should keep so much of the talky dialogue, but the beauty of film is that you can say so much without having to say so much. There's so much sitting around talking about things with only a cable news show to break up all the talking with more exposition. I'm assuming that using so much covered sets kept the budget low rather than filming outside, but with CGI costs not being so high anymore, there's no excuse for having such bad use of it with the constant showing of trains whisking through the countryside. If you're planning on relying on this as scene bumps, make sure it looks good.
> 
> Rand originally thought 'Atlas Shrugged' would work best as a mini-series and began working on the script before she died, and it seems that following this would have been the much smarter route. Trying to break this book up into three parts for a trilogy hoping that the first one will make enough money back to continue with the second is just not a smart business move. It's highly doubtful that 'Atlas Shrugged Part 2' will get made as the marketing for this film is pretty hokum and rather sloppy. James V. Horner is still listed as the writer on Rotten Tomatoes website.
> 
> *I hope that the filmmakers don't try to claim that all the bad reviews (and there will be many) is just people trying to keep the film from succeeding, because that's simply not the case. If they attempt this, they will be no better than James Taggart and his bunch of moochers.* The meaning of the title 'Atlas Shrugged' was the idea that what would happen to the world if the movers and makes shrugged and quit, but in this film's case, the few moviegoers it gets will be doing all the shrugging wondering what all the fuss about Ayn Rand is all about.


----------



## Big Fitz

QUENTIN said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say this much.  There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large.  If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a devoted Rand fan and filmmaker:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged' railed against mediocrity, but the filmmakers of 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' seem to revel in it as they've turned a powerful lightening rod of a story into the exact thing that Rand fought against.
> 
> 'Atlas Shrugged' has been one of those books that people either praise as having had a major effect on their lives or discount as nothing more than propaganda. I fall into the former as I first read the book in my early 20's and could relate to it's base message. I didn't agree with everything in Ayn Rand's philosophy, but it formed a nice base. Over the years I've given out countless copies of the books to friends who wound up saying that it was one of the best gifts they've ever gotten. So, when news first hit that the film version of the book would finally be coming out, I was rather hopeful since Rand seemed to have had foresight into what was coming for our country.
> 
> At first when the Baldwin's took on the film and were pushing out Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to star, I knew the film would never get made. It was becoming way to big to handle and do in a two hour film. Then when the trailer for 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' hit this past February, I was hoping that maybe it was just one of those badly cut trailers, but deep down, it was obvious what we were in for. The time couldn't have been better for a movie of this magnitude to hit and be a success as the story has some great cinematic moments, plus it could expose Rand to an entirely new generation that would have never paid much attention.
> 
> After seeing 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1', this will never happen, and the people behind this film claiming to want to honor Rand's legacy have just crapped all over it. The sad part about this is that Rand loved the movies. As a child in communist Russia, American films were her escape and propelled her to want to better her life. She was alive to see what King Vidor attempted to do with 'The Fountainhead', but with the studio jumping in, it still turned into more of a melodramatic film than what was intended. I'm so glad Rand isn't around to see that her most influential book, which still sells over 400,000 copies each year, be turned into the exact type of thing that she railed against; mediocre. Even the most diehard Rand fan will have trouble sitting through this film, and only the most loyal will admit that her most famous book has been violated in its message. In contrast with 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' , 'The Fountainhead' movie looks absolutely brilliant with a stellar cast of Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. Atlas doesn't even come close to that type of talent.
> 
> This may sound harsh, but as a very big fan of the book, I feel very offended by the filmmakers lack of respect for the source material which is rich with big movie moments. Producer John Aglialoro was about to lose the rights to 'Atlas Shrugged', which he'd had for 18 years, and it's obvious this has been a passion project for him as he's worked to get it into the right creative hands. Those are things that I understand and respect that, but what I've lost respect for is the fact that in a desperate attempt to hold on to the rights, which would have expired last June if production didn't start on the film, he pulled together a mediocre crew to get something made, quality be damned. I've had projects that I have fought for, but the idea of just putting out something mediocre to hold on to them never crossed my mind. Ayn Rand's books taught me that. Mr. Aglialoro and crew have become Peter Keatings (from The Fountainhead) who've sold out to get what they wanted. To me, that is a true crime to Ayn Rand's memory.
> 
> What they've made is a low budget film that was shot in 5 weeks on a $10 million budget and looks every bit the part. Just nine days before production One Tree Hill star Paul Johansson replaced Steven Polk as director. I'm confused as to why Aglialoro couldn't renegotiate the rights with the Rand estate who gave their permission for this film to be made arguing that a subpar film would result from having to work under those restrictions. That's very much the plotline of 'The Fountainhead' with Howard Rourke.
> 
> Now on to the film itself. 'Atlas Shrugged' is about a strong willed woman (Dagny Taggert) who is trying to save her transcontinental railroad from disaster set by laws and regulations threatening to end entrepreneurs in the United States. She's also fighting a man who is stealing away the men and women who have kept the motor of the world running, and it's slowly winding down as she continues struggling to keep it going. Just that alone shows that in the hands of a good production team, this could've been a fun action packed movie that would be both timely and show Hollywood that something fresh can make money like Chris Nolan's 'Inception'.
> 
> What we get with Johansson's 'Atlas Shrugged' is a movie set in 2016 where railroads rule. I don't get why they didn't just set this film back to a time when railroads truly did rule the country, but that would have cost more money so we can only imagine how much worse it would have looked. The cast includes: Graham Beckel (Brokeback Mountain) in the role of oil magnate Ellis Wyatt; Edi Gathegi (from the Twilight movies) in the part of Dagnys loyal lieutenant Eddie Willers; and two veterans of Coen brothers films, Michael Lerner and Jon Polito, to play political fixer Wesley Mouch and the collusive corporate sleaze Orren Boyle. For the key roles, the production made a major misstep with Taylor Schilling (Mercy) and Grant Bowler (True Blood) as Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon. (Fay Dunaway was once attached for the Dagny role and would have been perfect casting, but no such luck this time.)
> 
> The lack of direction in this film doesn't give anyone in the cast much to do so their speech sounds more like comic book speak which only diminishes the message they're trying to give. The lack of chemistry between Schilling and Bowler is just so bad that when they finally have their sexy scene, it reminded me of when Vin Diesel had a kissing scene in 'XXX' that looked like he couldn't wait for it to be over.
> 
> Even the 'Who Is John Galt' question is lost in all this as anyone unfamiliar with the book will be wondering why it even matters, not to mention that this film probably won't get picked up by even Lifetime on cable.
> 
> The filmmakers knew that the stakes were very high in getting this film made, and they blown it in the worst way possible where they only look like scavengers attempting to cash in on Ayn Rand's legacy and nothing else. Even on a tight budget (I've worked on plenty of those types of films), there is no excuse to strip a book with so much material of its essence. I understand the filmmakers thinking that they should keep so much of the talky dialogue, but the beauty of film is that you can say so much without having to say so much. There's so much sitting around talking about things with only a cable news show to break up all the talking with more exposition. I'm assuming that using so much covered sets kept the budget low rather than filming outside, but with CGI costs not being so high anymore, there's no excuse for having such bad use of it with the constant showing of trains whisking through the countryside. If you're planning on relying on this as scene bumps, make sure it looks good.
> 
> Rand originally thought 'Atlas Shrugged' would work best as a mini-series and began working on the script before she died, and it seems that following this would have been the much smarter route. Trying to break this book up into three parts for a trilogy hoping that the first one will make enough money back to continue with the second is just not a smart business move. It's highly doubtful that 'Atlas Shrugged Part 2' will get made as the marketing for this film is pretty hokum and rather sloppy. James V. Horner is still listed as the writer on Rotten Tomatoes website.
> 
> *I hope that the filmmakers don't try to claim that all the bad reviews (and there will be many) is just people trying to keep the film from succeeding, because that's simply not the case. If they attempt this, they will be no better than James Taggart and his bunch of moochers.* The meaning of the title 'Atlas Shrugged' was the idea that what would happen to the world if the movers and makes shrugged and quit, but in this film's case, the few moviegoers it gets will be doing all the shrugging wondering what all the fuss about Ayn Rand is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What I was saying... since it seemed so few got the point I'll reiterate... was:

You have no proof that those posting negative criticism claiming to be lifelong fans of Rand are what they say they are.  It's a known phenomenon that activists post false claims on the internet all the time to attempt to discredit their opponents by pretending to BE their opponents.

Therefore, since there is such hatred for this project regardless of it's actual quality, you cannot trust any criticism.

Conversely, you also cannot trust any praise either because there is also a concerted effort to pimp the project as well.  The best idea is to see it yourself, or listen to people whom you PERSONALLY know who have seen it.  Do not trust online, or other media sources that you cannot confirm their actual bias.


----------



## washamericom

Quote: Originally Posted by konradv  
The literate immediately identify it as one of the worst novels ever.

well... i guess that's it then


----------



## washamericom

rightwinger said:


> Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week
> 
> Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope
> "i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic.".........Nope
> 
> "how do you like us now. " ....... Same old Rand Libertarians overworshipping her novel. Kind of like Scientologists



yes, and so might i, i just got the permit applications from the national parks department... to stage a series of birher rallies begining this summer after the fourth of july, right here in beautiful in washington d.c. hope to see you there !!. trump says he's omaba's biggest nightmare, neither has ever met me, but you can read all about that on my website.


----------



## QUENTIN

Big Fitz said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say this much.  There is going to be a lot of false data about how bad this film regardless of it's worth and actual quality because the left has a vested interest on destroying anything by Ayn Rand lest her ideas catch on with the populace at large.  If the military has plans and programs to manipulate online memes... it's not far off to think that there are similar tactics being used by leftist radicals seeking to harm anything conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a devoted Rand fan and filmmaker:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged' railed against mediocrity, but the filmmakers of 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' seem to revel in it as they've turned a powerful lightening rod of a story into the exact thing that Rand fought against.
> 
> 'Atlas Shrugged' has been one of those books that people either praise as having had a major effect on their lives or discount as nothing more than propaganda. I fall into the former as I first read the book in my early 20's and could relate to it's base message. I didn't agree with everything in Ayn Rand's philosophy, but it formed a nice base. Over the years I've given out countless copies of the books to friends who wound up saying that it was one of the best gifts they've ever gotten. So, when news first hit that the film version of the book would finally be coming out, I was rather hopeful since Rand seemed to have had foresight into what was coming for our country.
> 
> At first when the Baldwin's took on the film and were pushing out Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to star, I knew the film would never get made. It was becoming way to big to handle and do in a two hour film. Then when the trailer for 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' hit this past February, I was hoping that maybe it was just one of those badly cut trailers, but deep down, it was obvious what we were in for. The time couldn't have been better for a movie of this magnitude to hit and be a success as the story has some great cinematic moments, plus it could expose Rand to an entirely new generation that would have never paid much attention.
> 
> After seeing 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1', this will never happen, and the people behind this film claiming to want to honor Rand's legacy have just crapped all over it. The sad part about this is that Rand loved the movies. As a child in communist Russia, American films were her escape and propelled her to want to better her life. She was alive to see what King Vidor attempted to do with 'The Fountainhead', but with the studio jumping in, it still turned into more of a melodramatic film than what was intended. I'm so glad Rand isn't around to see that her most influential book, which still sells over 400,000 copies each year, be turned into the exact type of thing that she railed against; mediocre. Even the most diehard Rand fan will have trouble sitting through this film, and only the most loyal will admit that her most famous book has been violated in its message. In contrast with 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1' , 'The Fountainhead' movie looks absolutely brilliant with a stellar cast of Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. Atlas doesn't even come close to that type of talent.
> 
> This may sound harsh, but as a very big fan of the book, I feel very offended by the filmmakers lack of respect for the source material which is rich with big movie moments. Producer John Aglialoro was about to lose the rights to 'Atlas Shrugged', which he'd had for 18 years, and it's obvious this has been a passion project for him as he's worked to get it into the right creative hands. Those are things that I understand and respect that, but what I've lost respect for is the fact that in a desperate attempt to hold on to the rights, which would have expired last June if production didn't start on the film, he pulled together a mediocre crew to get something made, quality be damned. I've had projects that I have fought for, but the idea of just putting out something mediocre to hold on to them never crossed my mind. Ayn Rand's books taught me that. Mr. Aglialoro and crew have become Peter Keatings (from The Fountainhead) who've sold out to get what they wanted. To me, that is a true crime to Ayn Rand's memory.
> 
> What they've made is a low budget film that was shot in 5 weeks on a $10 million budget and looks every bit the part. Just nine days before production &#8220;One Tree Hill&#8221; star Paul Johansson replaced Steven Polk as director. I'm confused as to why Aglialoro couldn't renegotiate the rights with the Rand estate who gave their permission for this film to be made arguing that a subpar film would result from having to work under those restrictions. That's very much the plotline of 'The Fountainhead' with Howard Rourke.
> 
> Now on to the film itself. 'Atlas Shrugged' is about a strong willed woman (Dagny Taggert) who is trying to save her transcontinental railroad from disaster set by laws and regulations threatening to end entrepreneurs in the United States. She's also fighting a man who is stealing away the men and women who have kept the motor of the world running, and it's slowly winding down as she continues struggling to keep it going. Just that alone shows that in the hands of a good production team, this could've been a fun action packed movie that would be both timely and show Hollywood that something fresh can make money like Chris Nolan's 'Inception'.
> 
> What we get with Johansson's 'Atlas Shrugged' is a movie set in 2016 where railroads rule. I don't get why they didn't just set this film back to a time when railroads truly did rule the country, but that would have cost more money so we can only imagine how much worse it would have looked. The cast includes: Graham Beckel (Brokeback Mountain) in the role of oil magnate Ellis Wyatt; Edi Gathegi (from the Twilight movies) in the part of Dagny&#8217;s loyal lieutenant Eddie Willers; and two veterans of Coen brothers films, Michael Lerner and Jon Polito, to play political fixer Wesley Mouch and the collusive corporate sleaze Orren Boyle. For the key roles, the production made a major misstep with Taylor Schilling (Mercy) and Grant Bowler (True Blood) as Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon. (Fay Dunaway was once attached for the Dagny role and would have been perfect casting, but no such luck this time.)
> 
> The lack of direction in this film doesn't give anyone in the cast much to do so their speech sounds more like comic book speak which only diminishes the message they're trying to give. The lack of chemistry between Schilling and Bowler is just so bad that when they finally have their sexy scene, it reminded me of when Vin Diesel had a kissing scene in 'XXX' that looked like he couldn't wait for it to be over.
> 
> Even the 'Who Is John Galt' question is lost in all this as anyone unfamiliar with the book will be wondering why it even matters, not to mention that this film probably won't get picked up by even Lifetime on cable.
> 
> The filmmakers knew that the stakes were very high in getting this film made, and they blown it in the worst way possible where they only look like scavengers attempting to cash in on Ayn Rand's legacy and nothing else. Even on a tight budget (I've worked on plenty of those types of films), there is no excuse to strip a book with so much material of its essence. I understand the filmmakers thinking that they should keep so much of the talky dialogue, but the beauty of film is that you can say so much without having to say so much. There's so much sitting around talking about things with only a cable news show to break up all the talking with more exposition. I'm assuming that using so much covered sets kept the budget low rather than filming outside, but with CGI costs not being so high anymore, there's no excuse for having such bad use of it with the constant showing of trains whisking through the countryside. If you're planning on relying on this as scene bumps, make sure it looks good.
> 
> Rand originally thought 'Atlas Shrugged' would work best as a mini-series and began working on the script before she died, and it seems that following this would have been the much smarter route. Trying to break this book up into three parts for a trilogy hoping that the first one will make enough money back to continue with the second is just not a smart business move. It's highly doubtful that 'Atlas Shrugged Part 2' will get made as the marketing for this film is pretty hokum and rather sloppy. James V. Horner is still listed as the writer on Rotten Tomatoes website.
> 
> *I hope that the filmmakers don't try to claim that all the bad reviews (and there will be many) is just people trying to keep the film from succeeding, because that's simply not the case. If they attempt this, they will be no better than James Taggart and his bunch of moochers.* The meaning of the title 'Atlas Shrugged' was the idea that what would happen to the world if the movers and makes shrugged and quit, but in this film's case, the few moviegoers it gets will be doing all the shrugging wondering what all the fuss about Ayn Rand is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I was saying... since it seemed so few got the point I'll reiterate... was:
> 
> You have no proof that those posting negative criticism claiming to be lifelong fans of Rand are what they say they are.  It's a known phenomenon that activists post false claims on the internet all the time to attempt to discredit their opponents by pretending to BE their opponents.
> 
> Therefore, since there is such hatred for this project regardless of it's actual quality, you cannot trust any criticism.
> 
> Conversely, you also cannot trust any praise either because there is also a concerted effort to pimp the project as well.  The best idea is to see it yourself, or listen to people whom you PERSONALLY know who have seen it.  Do not trust online, or other media sources that you cannot confirm their actual bias.
Click to expand...


This isn't necessarily a bad or unreasonable outlook but it seems a little unnecessarily paranoid. Anonymous commenters on IMDb could absolutely be sockpuppets pretending to be Rand devotees who hated the film.

Established movie critics however who post hundreds of reviews a year and have for years and whose biographies, political inclinations, influences, and tastes are well-known are not going to try and certainly wouldn't successfully be able to suddenly pretend to be conservatives or fans of the novel if they weren't. Thinking they would, that there is a concerted effort to mislead among those professionals, strikes me as conspiratorial and without evidence or rational basis.

The guy who posted the review I linked to, the in-house film critic for bestmoviesevernews.com has published 148 articles since 2009 and has mentioned Ayn Rand 9 times, always favorably, referring to Atlas Shrugged as "the one book that I read when I&#8217;ve had to deal with too many stupid people, and the movie version has been a painfully slow process, but it&#8217;s finally been done in a trilogy with the first part hitting theaters on April 15, 2001, which is a pretty appropriate date for the Ayn Rand bestseller." back in February of 2011 and Rand as "among my favorite authors" in March of 2010 and "inspirational...prescient" in the same month. To assume, or even really speculate, that this was all a well-concocted ploy planned a year in advance so he could damn the film while pretending to be an adherent of its source material seems highly dubious.

We can agree that a lot of anonymous internet commenters may have an agenda or not be on the up-and-up (though in terms of actual campaigns, so far that has only gone one way) and thus their opinions not to be given much weight, but that's different than when I refer to a film's Rotten Tomatoes rating you suggesting there will be false data about the film regardless of its worth or quality because the radical left wants to destroy and marginalize Rand. We're talking movie critics, not The Weather Underground.


----------



## QUENTIN

washamericom said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week
> 
> Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope
> "i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic.".........Nope
> 
> "how do you like us now. " ....... Same old Rand Libertarians overworshipping her novel. Kind of like Scientologists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and so might i, i just got the permit applications from the national parks department... to stage a series of birher rallies begining this summer after the fourth of july, right here in beautiful in washington d.c. hope to see you there !!. trump says he's omaba's biggest nightmare, neither has ever met me, but you can read all about that on my website.
Click to expand...


Do you care to address the fact that your bold predictions about the Atlas Shrugged film, now that it's out and has been released to little fanfare, audience interest, critical or commercial success, seem to have been totally wrong? That it's barely a blip on the radar, may not even make back its quite small budget, and seems to not be a factor in the national (political, economic, or even just cinematic) conversation rather than a film that will change the face of American politics?

It's okay to admit you thought or hoped the film would have a big impact and it hasn't. It just kinda seems like you're dodging that point and want to avoid saying you were wrong.


----------



## rightwinger

washamericom said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week
> 
> Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope
> "i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic.".........Nope
> 
> "how do you like us now. " ....... Same old Rand Libertarians overworshipping her novel. Kind of like Scientologists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and so might i, i just got the permit applications from the national parks department... to stage a series of birher rallies begining this summer after the fourth of july, right here in beautiful in washington d.c. hope to see you there !!. trump says he's omaba's biggest nightmare, neither has ever met me, but you can read all about that on my website.
Click to expand...


Cool

Maybe you can hand out Atlas Shrugged DVDs to everyone there. They should be in the bargain bin by then and you could probably pick them up for 25 cents a copy


----------



## QUENTIN

washamericom said:


> yes, and so might i, i just got the permit applications from the national parks department... to stage a series of birher rallies begining this summer after the fourth of july, right here in beautiful in washington d.c. hope to see you there !!. trump says he's omaba's biggest nightmare, neither has ever met me, but you can read all about that on my website.



On an off-topic note, you may want to try to find a web designer (a lot of fresh grads will redesign a site quick and cheap) or even just use a standard web template for your website. The layout is extremely garish, cluttered, and hard to navigate. If you want to get people interested or involved in joining your cause, it helps not to have a site that looks like something a 14-year-old created on Angelfire in 1996. It's quite off-putting and amateurish, I think it'll make it harder for people to take you seriously.


----------



## washamericom

rightwinger said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....Atlas Shrugged had its long awaited premier and will be out of the theaters by next week
> 
> Did it....."Change the face of American politics" ?.........Nope
> "i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic.".........Nope
> 
> "how do you like us now. " ....... Same old Rand Libertarians overworshipping her novel. Kind of like Scientologists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and so might i, i just got the permit applications from the national parks department... to stage a series of birher rallies begining this summer after the fourth of july, right here in beautiful in washington d.c. hope to see you there !!. trump says he's omaba's biggest nightmare, neither has ever met me, but you can read all about that on my website.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool
> 
> Maybe you can hand out Atlas Shrugged DVDs to everyone there. They should be in the bargain bin by then and you could probably pick them up for 25 cents a copy
Click to expand...


wouldn't that be capitalism ??


----------



## MarcATL

So....how was it?

To the 3 people, if that, that actually had to be paid to go see it.


----------



## Political Junky

ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART I
This comically tasteless and flavorless adaptation of Ayn Rand&#8217;s bombastic magnum opus delivers her simplistic nostrums with smug self-satisfaction.

Read more Movies : The New Yorker


----------



## MarcATL

Political Junky said:


> ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART I
> This comically tasteless and flavorless adaptation of Ayn Rands bombastic magnum opus delivers her simplistic nostrums with smug self-satisfaction.
> 
> Read more Movies : The New Yorker



That link didn't have it.

This link does: Atlas Shrugged: Part I : The New Yorker

So it looks like the next one will go straight to DVD, if that huh?


Figures....


lol


----------



## Political Junky

MarcATL said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART I
> This comically tasteless and flavorless adaptation of Ayn Rands bombastic magnum opus delivers her simplistic nostrums with smug self-satisfaction.
> 
> Read more Movies : The New Yorker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That link didn't have it.
> 
> This link does: Atlas Shrugged: Part I : The New Yorker
> 
> So it looks like the next one will go straight to DVD, if that huh?
> 
> 
> Figures....
> 
> 
> lol
Click to expand...

Actually it does, but you have to go to page two by clicking at the bottom of the page.
Thanks, for the direct link.


----------



## Uncensored2008

MarcATL said:


> So....how was it?
> 
> To the 3 people, if that, that actually had to be paid to go see it.



It was okay.

Not nearly as bad as the detractors claim, but low budget and very slow moving. 

I was skeptical when I first heard that a film was being made - this doesn't seem like one that would translate well. 

I know Rand and like the book, I could follow along. My wife got confused - BUT the film still held her interest.

The subject matter is excellent, as is the message. The action is pretty well non-existent. Acting was okay. Sets were surprisingly good, given the budget. 

I'd give it 6 out of 10.


----------



## MarcATL

Uncensored2008 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....how was it?
> 
> To the 3 people, if that, that actually had to be paid to go see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was okay.
> 
> Not nearly as bad as the detractors claim, but low budget and very slow moving.
> 
> I was skeptical when I first heard that a film was being made - this doesn't seem like one that would translate well.
> 
> I know Rand and like the book, I could follow along. My wife got confused - BUT the film still held her interest.
> 
> The subject matter is excellent, as is the message. The action is pretty well non-existent. Acting was okay. Sets were surprisingly good, given the budget.
> 
> I'd give it 6 out of 10.
Click to expand...

Somewhere early in this thread I stated something to the effect of this being one, big, made-for-tv/video/theatre B-movie.

Couldn't find it though.

So how was the turn-out in the theater? And if you don't mind what city/state?


----------



## Uncensored2008

MarcATL said:


> [Somewhere early in this thread I stated something to the effect of this being one, big, made-for-tv/video/theatre B-movie.
> 
> Couldn't find it though.
> 
> So how was the turn-out in the theater? And if you don't mind what city/state?



Yeah, TV Movie level is pretty accurate. 

I went to the Regency South Coast in Orange, California. It was a premier party sponsored by the Orange Country Register. They had a pre-viewing reception with hors dourves. It was not in the largest theater but one of the middle sized ones. The place was packed to capacity.


----------



## MarcATL

Uncensored2008 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Somewhere early in this thread I stated something to the effect of this being one, big, made-for-tv/video/theatre B-movie.
> 
> Couldn't find it though.
> 
> So how was the turn-out in the theater? And if you don't mind what city/state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, TV Movie level is pretty accurate.
> 
> I went to the Regency South Coast in Orange, California. It was a premier party sponsored by the Orange Country Register. They had a pre-viewing reception with hors dourves. It was not in the largest theater but one of the middle sized ones. The place was packed to capacity.
Click to expand...


Thanks for sharing. People came from near and far huh?


----------



## Uncensored2008

MarcATL said:


> Thanks for sharing. People came from near and far huh?



Seemed like all Orange County people, as far as I could tell.


----------



## geauxtohell

Oh, damn.  A box office bomb.

It must be the fault of the damned Hollywood liberals.


----------



## Big Fitz

Interesting the demise of this film is being touted, yet it had the second highest per theater gross this weekend.  Next weekend, 1000 more theaters.  Now, that could be because devotees went.  Or it could be it's actually good.  We'll see.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Big Fitz said:


> Interesting the demise of this film is being touted, yet it had the second highest per theater gross this weekend.  Next weekend, 1000 more theaters.  Now, that could be because devotees went.  Or it could be it's actually good.  We'll see.



We will see, of course. But "per screen" numbers don't mean anything when it's only playing on one screen in each city.


----------



## Political Junky

Orange County was a good choice of places to show it.


----------



## MarcATL

It played in Duluth in the ATL area.

Maybe ATLRadioGuy went to see it.


----------



## QUENTIN

Big Fitz said:


> Interesting the demise of this film is being touted, yet it had the second highest per theater gross this weekend.  Next weekend, 1000 more theaters.  Now, that could be because devotees went.  Or it could be it's actually good.  We'll see.



No it didn't. Where'd you get that? It had the ninth highest per screen average.

Weekend Box Office Results for April 15-17, 2011 - Box Office Mojo

April 15-17 weekend:

Double Hour 		               $15,123 per screen average 	
Evil Bong 3-D 	                       $12,265 per screen average 	
Rio 	                                       $10,252  per screen average
Blank City 	                               $9,184 per screen average 	
The Princess of Montpensier 	$7,819 per screen average
Meek's Cutoff                             $7,046 per screen average
Deep Sea 3-D                            $6,852 per screen average
Scream 4 	 	             	       $5,656 per screen average
Atlas Shrugged: Part I 	       $5,640 per screen average

Per screen numbers do mean something, but the fewer the number of theaters the higher that number will be, which is why independent films often have a higher per screen average yet obviously don't make nearly as much money as studio productions and more often than not fail to make back their budget and marketing costs. When an independent film is a big hit in a small number of theaters and that justifies a wider release and suggests there's sufficient interest that it will do well in say 1,000 or even 3,000 theaters, it tends to have a significantly higher per screen average than $5,640. Black Swan for instance had an $80, 212 per screen average its first week of release. Or to use a lower budget film than Swan or Atlas that had no stars and was a political polemic, Fahrenheit 9/11 had a per screen average of $27, 588 its opening weekend and in only 868 theaters or less than 3 times as many as Atlas Shrugged, it was the #1 film at the box-office overall, taking in $23.9 million and beating out 12 films that were playing in 2,000-3,400 theaters. $5,000 per screen in 300 theaters suggests it will not gross nearly enough to be considered a hit or cultural phenomenon and is not even likely to make back its $10 million. Hell, it made less than half the per screen of a movie called "Evil Bong 3-D."

I like how the goal posts have been moved too from changing the face of American politics to not being a dismal failure. Fahrenheit grossed $119 million domestic and even that certainly didn't change the face of American politics.


----------



## konradv

Apparently America shrugged too!!!

*Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED Box Office: Critically Lambasted Ideological Drama Does Middling Business*

Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED Box Office: Critically Lambasted Ideological Drama Does Middling Business


----------



## Truthseeker420

Quantum Windbag said:


> YouTube - Atlas Is Shrugging
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why this stupid movie makes sense now?



Now that a Democrat is in office? Companies are making record profits. The only state control is on the individual. Corporations control the government.


----------



## washamericom

McCauley: What if America just shrugged? - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News


----------



## newpolitics

Truthseeker420 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Atlas Is Shrugging
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why this stupid movie makes sense now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that a Democrat is in office? Companies are making record profits. The only state control is on the individual. Corporations control the government.
Click to expand...


Indeed they do, that is why I wish righties would stop blaming Obama for everything and try to see that no matter who holds the position of president doesn't really have that much power. There is too much money in Washington, and that will always be the more powerful. Money is our president. Debt is our owner. All this bickering between right and left is exactly what the money interests want- to keep us distracted with the illusion that voting in another president who will save us all is somehow going to fix things. If ever there was a president who actually tried to change things, they would be somehow ousted. Obama WAS that person, and now has been conditioned by the climate in Washington, by the money interests, by the massive and complex interplay between government and corporations. While we tussel over the last piece of catfood, they are doing what they want. WAKE UP! Stop fighting with eachother, and spend your money in better places. Take the power back from corporations, and get the money out of washington. Until we do, we will always be slave to them, constantly deluding ourselves that we actually have any power with our vote. The president is, and always will be a puppet. You say Reagan wasn't? Well, that's because he basically stood for the money interests (big oil, military contracts), so he didn't need much coaxing. We all mistook it as the American dream. In reality, we made things much worse by giving him our faith. Again, wake up America. You are being duped by the very people into which you have put your faith. I'm talking about the right and the left... so don't give me any partisan bullshit.


----------



## Big Fitz

QUENTIN said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting the demise of this film is being touted, yet it had the second highest per theater gross this weekend.  Next weekend, 1000 more theaters.  Now, that could be because devotees went.  Or it could be it's actually good.  We'll see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't. Where'd you get that? It had the ninth highest per screen average.
> 
> Weekend Box Office Results for April 15-17, 2011 - Box Office Mojo
> 
> April 15-17 weekend:
> 
> Double Hour 		               $15,123 per screen average
> Evil Bong 3-D 	                       $12,265 per screen average
> Rio 	                                       $10,252  per screen average
> Blank City 	                               $9,184 per screen average
> The Princess of Montpensier 	$7,819 per screen average
> Meek's Cutoff                             $7,046 per screen average
> Deep Sea 3-D                            $6,852 per screen average
> Scream 4 	 	             	       $5,656 per screen average
> Atlas Shrugged: Part I 	       $5,640 per screen average
> 
> Per screen numbers do mean something, but the fewer the number of theaters the higher that number will be, which is why independent films often have a higher per screen average yet obviously don't make nearly as much money as studio productions and more often than not fail to make back their budget and marketing costs. When an independent film is a big hit in a small number of theaters and that justifies a wider release and suggests there's sufficient interest that it will do well in say 1,000 or even 3,000 theaters, it tends to have a significantly higher per screen average than $5,640. Black Swan for instance had an $80, 212 per screen average its first week of release. Or to use a lower budget film than Swan or Atlas that had no stars and was a political polemic, Fahrenheit 9/11 had a per screen average of $27, 588 its opening weekend and in only 868 theaters or less than 3 times as many as Atlas Shrugged, it was the #1 film at the box-office overall, taking in $23.9 million and beating out 12 films that were playing in 2,000-3,400 hundred theaters. $5,000 per screen in 300 theaters suggests it will not gross nearly enough to be considered a hit or cultural phenomenon and is not even likely to make back its $10 million. Hell, it made less than half the per screen of a movie called "Evil Bong 3-D."
> 
> I like how the goal posts have been moved too from changing the face of American politics to not being a dismal failure. Fahrenheit grossed $119 million domestic and even that certainly didn't change the face of American politics.
Click to expand...

Must have been early numbers I heard reported on the Jason Lewis Show then.  

The point still remains that this movie is not box office poison nor an inherent bomb or smash.  It is having a good showing.  Sort of like "UHF" was an excellent release... if it hadn't come out the same weekend as blockbusters like "Robocop", "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and some other major hits of that year IIRC, it would have done far better.  Not saying that Atlas Shrugged lost business to other movies, but that the cries of triumph and doom are bogus.


----------



## Intense

It is not playing in very many Theaters in or around NYC. It is out there, just hard to find.


----------



## Uncensored2008

geauxtohell said:


> Oh, damn.  A box office bomb.
> 
> It must be the fault of the damned Hollywood liberals.



With a $10 million price tag, it doesn't need too many sales to be profitable. 

As usual, what you KOS Kiddies klaim doesn't match reality. 

Let's see how it stacks up against "The Motorcycle Diaries" (lost $17 million,) the Communist equivalent. Granted, the hero worship of communist terrorist Guevara got a Hollywood big budget, had every critic in the nation bubbling over how wonderful it was - yet still lost more money than this film cost to begin with.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Intense said:


> It is not playing in very many Theaters in or around NYC. It is out there, just hard to find.



Yet here in liberal California, it's in 29 theaters in the Orange County/Riverside area. 

Fandango Atlas Shrugged Corona - Google Search

Manhattan is a leftist Mecca, perhaps once you get out of it there is more saturation.


----------



## Intense

Uncensored2008 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not playing in very many Theaters in or around NYC. It is out there, just hard to find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here in liberal California, it's in 29 theaters in the Orange County/Riverside area.
> 
> Fandango Atlas Shrugged Corona - Google Search
> 
> Manhattan is a leftist Mecca, perhaps once you get out of it there is more saturation.
Click to expand...


I saw it Friday at the only Theater I could find it playing in, in all of Queens County. I find one Listing in Brooklyn, none in the Bronx. 

Atlas Shrugged Movie - Theaters & Tickets. There is more at play here than you suggest.


----------



## konradv

newpolitics said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Atlas Is Shrugging
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why this stupid movie makes sense now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that a Democrat is in office? Companies are making record profits. The only state control is on the individual. Corporations control the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed they do, that is why I wish righties would stop blaming Obama for everything and try to see that no matter who holds the position of president doesn't really have that much power. There is too much money in Washington, and that will always be the more powerful. Money is our president. Debt is our owner. All this bickering between right and left is exactly what the money interests want- to keep us distracted with the illusion that voting in another president who will save us all is somehow going to fix things. If ever there was a president who actually tried to change things, they would be somehow ousted. Obama WAS that person, and now has been conditioned by the climate in Washington, by the money interests, by the massive and complex interplay between government and corporations. While we tussel over the last piece of catfood, they are doing what they want. WAKE UP! Stop fighting with eachother, and spend your money in better places. Take the power back from corporations, and get the money out of washington. Until we do, we will always be slave to them, constantly deluding ourselves that we actually have any power with our vote. The president is, and always will be a puppet. You say Reagan wasn't? Well, that's because he basically stood for the money interests (big oil, military contracts), so he didn't need much coaxing. We all mistook it as the American dream. In reality, we made things much worse by giving him our faith. Again, wake up America. You are being duped by the very people into which you have put your faith. I'm talking about the right and the left... so don't give me any partisan bullshit.
Click to expand...


A lot of it has to do with how elections are financed.  Our representitives spend too much of their time selling their votes to whomever can bundle the largest amount of contributions.  They should be spending that time on OUR business, NOT selling us out.  The only solution I see is public financing of elections.  They do it in Britain.  I'd really like to hear from someone familiar with the system that can tell us how it works and how well.  Anyone?


----------



## rightwinger

If he saw the movie.....

Atlas winced


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Atlas Shrugged: Part I was the top-grossing limited release of the weekend, generating $1.7 million at 299 single-screen locations.

For a pure independent release, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's opening was fine. But for the first-ever adaptation of Ayn Rand's influential mega-selling 1957 novel that had far more media hype than any other independent movie could dream of, it was disappointing.

There aren't many direct comparisons, because it's rare that an adaptation of such a famous book gets such a modest release. Atlas Shrugged: Part I opened higher than recent limited Christian movies The Grace Card and To Save a Life, and it was distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures' third highest-grossing launch, behind End of the Spear and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. But none of those movies are significant in the grand scheme of things. They're all still blips, even if Atlas was a slightly bigger blip than many.

'Atlas Shrugged: Part I' Derails? - Box Office Mojo


----------



## Uncensored2008

Intense said:


> I saw it Friday at the only Theater I could find it playing in, in all of Queens County. I find one Listing in Brooklyn, none in the Bronx.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Movie - Theaters & Tickets. There is more at play here than you suggest.



There may well be.

I went back through my list and noticed that every theater playing it is a "Regal" theater. None of the other theater chains are running it. Could be that it is only getting wide distribution out here because a major chain is sympathetic. The other theater chains may be black balling it. If so, it's stupid on their part. This isn't 1970. Most movies make FAR more on DVD sales than in the theater. This will be no exception.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> If he saw the movie.....
> 
> Atlas winced



I thought he was snoring.


----------



## Intense

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Atlas Shrugged: Part I was the top-grossing limited release of the weekend, generating $1.7 million at 299 single-screen locations.
> 
> For a pure independent release, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's opening was fine. But for the first-ever adaptation of Ayn Rand's influential mega-selling 1957 novel that had far more media hype than any other independent movie could dream of, it was disappointing.
> 
> There aren't many direct comparisons, because it's rare that an adaptation of such a famous book gets such a modest release. Atlas Shrugged: Part I opened higher than recent limited Christian movies The Grace Card and To Save a Life, and it was distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures' third highest-grossing launch, behind End of the Spear and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. But none of those movies are significant in the grand scheme of things. They're all still blips, even if Atlas was a slightly bigger blip than many.
> 
> 'Atlas Shrugged: Part I' Derails? - Box Office Mojo



What about "The Passion Of The Christ"??? 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/


----------



## QUENTIN

Uncensored2008 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw it Friday at the only Theater I could find it playing in, in all of Queens County. I find one Listing in Brooklyn, none in the Bronx.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Movie - Theaters & Tickets. There is more at play here than you suggest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may well be.
> 
> I went back through my list and noticed that every theater playing it is a "Regal" theater. None of the other theater chains are running it. Could be that it is only getting wide distribution out here because a major chain is sympathetic. The other theater chains may be black balling it. If so, it's stupid on their part. This isn't 1970. Most movies make FAR more on DVD sales than in the theater. This will be no exception.
Click to expand...


It's difficult to read you guys who have no idea how movie distribution works making these ridiculous conspiratorial assumptions.

The movie is low budget, independent, and has a small niche-market distributor that specializes in religious and conservative films. The distributor has little money, little reach, few connections - just like most indie distributors. They're trying a platform release strategy and, having little money and established relationships with theater chains, may only have a deal with Regal. Many small distribution companies that release independent films only have deals worked out with the Landmark chain. That's how distribution on this scale works, all the time, with hundreds of films a year. Playing in only one chain or in a small amount of theaters is not "black balling" by other chains and striking a deal with another doesn't mean they're sympathetic to the film's content.

In terms of its release, Atlas Shrugged is being moved like any low budget independent film with a small distributor and no stars, there's nothing about the release strategy particularly unique to this film or a result of its content. 

But sure, if you want, you can speculate how maybe George Soros is behind it.

As for the idea that movies make more on DVD than in theaters, much less FAR more, it's just demonstrably untrue. Movies that make $100 million at the box-office are lucky to make $15 million in DVD sales. There are examples of rare films making more on DVD than in theaters, but they're quite few and far between and the exception to the overwhelming rule.


----------



## Intense

QUENTIN said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw it Friday at the only Theater I could find it playing in, in all of Queens County. I find one Listing in Brooklyn, none in the Bronx.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Movie - Theaters & Tickets. There is more at play here than you suggest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may well be.
> 
> I went back through my list and noticed that every theater playing it is a "Regal" theater. None of the other theater chains are running it. Could be that it is only getting wide distribution out here because a major chain is sympathetic. The other theater chains may be black balling it. If so, it's stupid on their part. This isn't 1970. Most movies make FAR more on DVD sales than in the theater. This will be no exception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's difficult to read you guys who have no idea how movie distribution works making these ridiculous conspiratorial assumptions.
> 
> The movie is low budget, independent, and has a small niche-market distributor that specializes in religious and conservative films. The distributor has little money, little reach, few connections - just like most indie distributors. They're trying a platform release strategy and, having little money and established relationships with theater chains, may only have a deal with Regal. Many small distribution companies that release independent films only have deals worked out with the Landmark chain. That's how distribution on this scale works, all the time, with hundreds of films a year. Playing in only one chain or in a small amount of theaters is not "black balling" by other chains and striking a deal with another doesn't mean they're sympathetic to the film's content.
> 
> In terms of its release, Atlas Shrugged is being moved like any low budget independent film with a small distributor and no stars, there's nothing about the release strategy particularly unique to this film or a result of its content.
> 
> But sure, if you want, you can speculate how maybe George Soros is behind it.
> 
> As for the idea that movies make more on DVD than in theaters, much less FAR more, it's just demonstrably untrue. Movies that make $100 million at the box-office are lucky to make $15 million in DVD sales. There are examples of rare films making more on DVD that in theaters, but they're quite rare and the exception to the overwhelming rule.
Click to expand...


Good points, and not arguable. If I would lay claim to any conspiracy theories, it would involve those trashing the film, not having seen it, and encouraging people to not see it, based on Political agenda. Those calling it a flop using the numbers, without regard to it's limited availability. "The Passion of the Christ" comes to mind, which got a bad rap from the start, still it blew the dissenters out of the water. 

There are shenanigans going on, separate from distribution or showing issues. As an Indie, it is pretty well done. The Cast, did a great job keeping to the theme of the Novel. Unlike movies like "Troy" which probably should have been named "Achilles", where the plot and everything about the Movie served as setting and background for Brad Pitt. I found the movie very refreshing, in that it was about the message, not the players or their ego's.


----------



## washamericom

who would dare move my magnificent atlas thread to media. why don't you move politics to the bottom and bring humor to the top gunny ? that would solve the problem.... too many people try to aire their grevences in the political zone. this board should have a few rules... (tongue in cheek)


----------



## Toro

washamericom said:


> who would dare move my magnificent atlas thread to media. why don't you move politics to the bottom and bring humor to the top gunny ? that would solve the problem.... too many people try to aire their grevences in the political zone. this board should have a few rules... (tongue in cheek)



I would have moved this thread to the Sports subforum.  But that's just me.

Prolly why I'm not a mod...


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> who would dare move my magnificent atlas thread to media. why don't you move politics to the bottom and bring humor to the top gunny ? that would solve the problem.... too many people try to aire their grevences in the political zone. this board should have a few rules... (tongue in cheek)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have moved this thread to the Sports subforum.  But that's just me.
> 
> Prolly why I'm not a mod...
Click to expand...


That, and your refusal to use the appropriate Avatar


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

900


----------



## konradv

Sallow said:


> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.



Even many people that hate _Atlas Shrugged _seem to like _The Fountainhead_.  I agree with you though, I came away from the book shaking my head at what an asshole Roark was.


----------



## editec

I would not expect this movie to be either a critical success or a box office smash, either.

The subject matter itself (regardless of what you think of Rand or her toxic social theories) just doesn't appeal much to the average movie goer.

I'll probably watch it if I can, but then I'm not remotely part of an average movie audience.


----------



## Intense

konradv said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the worst authors I've ever wasted my time on. I got through 3/4ths of the Fountainhead before I tossed the book where it belonged..the trash.
> 
> It's comforting to know that before she died..she, like many Americans, had to rely on SSI because she went broke due to Medical expenses.
> 
> The irony was thick with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even many people that hate _Atlas Shrugged _seem to like _The Fountainhead_.  I agree with you though, I came away from the book shaking my head at what an asshole Roark was.
Click to expand...


Howard Roark As the protagonist and hero in the book, Roark is an aspiring architect who firmly believes that a person must be a "prime mover" to achieve pure art, not mitigated by others, as opposed to councils or committees of individuals which lead to compromise and mediocrity and a "watering down" of a prime mover's completed vision. He represents the triumph of individualism over the slow stagnation of collectivism. Bowing to none, Roark rises from an unknown architect who was kicked out of school for "drawing outside of the lines". It is widely believed that Rand modeled the character of Howard Roark after Frank Lloyd Wright.[19] The descriptions of the character also have much in common with her earlier writings influenced by the murderer William Edward Hickman.[20] Roark goes on to design many landmark buildings. Roark rails against convention. He is eventually arrested and brought to trial for dynamiting a building he designed, but whose design was compromised by other architects brought in to negate his vision of the project. With a powerful speech condemning "second-handers" and declaring the superiority of prime movers, Roark prevails and is vindicated by the jury.

The Fountainhead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had two issues with Roark.

1) Rape.
2) Blowing things up.

That said, it was a great novel, and a great movie.


----------



## theHawk

8537 said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> you and your fellow right wing conservatives believe in a dog eat dog mentality and work diligently to assure that a smalll portion of the populace reap GREAT REWARDS while MILLIONS living in poverty
> 
> is that so wrong ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it wrong to work to assure that millions live in poverty?*
> Yes, it is.
> 
> What kind of fucked up world do you live in?
Click to expand...


That is exactly what liberals in government do - Work to ensure millions live in poverty.

And yes it is wrong and thats why there are millions who oppose liberals being in power.


----------



## MarcATL

editec said:


> I would not expect this movie to be either a critical success or a box office smash, either.
> 
> The subject matter itself (regardless of what you think of Rand or her toxic social theories) just doesn't appeal much to the average movie goer.
> 
> I'll probably watch it if I can, but then I'm not remotely part of an average movie audience.



I was thinking of going to watch it, mostly to see the mass of RWers lap it up like the mindless lemmings they are.

However, I thought about it and I wont spend a red cent on that swill.

I'll just wait for it to be released on DVD in 3 to 4 weeks and download it from the Torrents.


----------



## Bern80

MarcATL said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not expect this movie to be either a critical success or a box office smash, either.
> 
> The subject matter itself (regardless of what you think of Rand or her toxic social theories) just doesn't appeal much to the average movie goer.
> 
> I'll probably watch it if I can, but then I'm not remotely part of an average movie audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking of going to watch it, mostly to see the mass of RWers lap it up like the mindless lemmings they are.
> 
> However, I thought about it and I wont spend a red cent on that swill.
> 
> I'll just wait for it to be released on DVD in 3 to 4 weeks and download it from the Torrents.
Click to expand...


Typically liberal insisting someone else to pay for what he wants. What a shock.


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not expect this movie to be either a critical success or a box office smash, either.
> 
> The subject matter itself (regardless of what you think of Rand or her toxic social theories) just doesn't appeal much to the average movie goer.
> 
> I'll probably watch it if I can, but then I'm not remotely part of an average movie audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking of going to watch it, mostly to see the mass of RWers lap it up like the mindless lemmings they are.
> 
> However, I thought about it and I wont spend a red cent on that swill.
> 
> I'll just wait for it to be released on DVD in 3 to 4 weeks and download it from the Torrents.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically liberal insisting someone else to pay for what he wants. What a shock.
Click to expand...


He never said he wouldn't pay. He just said he would defer the satisfaction of laughing at it.

Atlas Shrugged may make a good substitute for Rocky Horror Picture Show

They could show it midnight on Saturdays and the audience can laugh and throw things at the screen


----------



## whitehall

Sorry to bust your bubble Iran. Life doesn't imitate art except in the minds of fools who grew up watching MTV.


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking of going to watch it, mostly to see the mass of RWers lap it up like the mindless lemmings they are.
> 
> However, I thought about it and I wont spend a red cent on that swill.
> 
> I'll just wait for it to be released on DVD in 3 to 4 weeks and download it from the Torrents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typically liberal insisting someone else to pay for what he wants. What a shock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He never said he wouldn't pay. He just said he would defer the satisfaction of laughing at it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged may make a good substitute for Rocky Horror Picture Show
> 
> They could show it midnight on Saturdays and the audience can laugh and throw things at the screen
Click to expand...


It's cute watching you whip out one liners, and you could be right. The movie might suck. But clever as you think you are, I have yet to hear an actual argument as to any fallacy of her philosophy.


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typically liberal insisting someone else to pay for what he wants. What a shock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He never said he wouldn't pay. He just said he would defer the satisfaction of laughing at it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged may make a good substitute for Rocky Horror Picture Show
> 
> They could show it midnight on Saturdays and the audience can laugh and throw things at the screen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's cute watching you whip out one liners, and you could be right. The movie might suck. But clever as you think you are, I have yet to hear an actual argument as to any fallacy of her philosophy.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> He never said he wouldn't pay. He just said he would defer the satisfaction of laughing at it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged may make a good substitute for Rocky Horror Picture Show
> 
> They could show it midnight on Saturdays and the audience can laugh and throw things at the screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's cute watching you whip out one liners, and you could be right. The movie might suck. But clever as you think you are, I have yet to hear an actual argument as to any fallacy of her philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If that were actually accurate that Rand's philosophy somehow stipulated that entrepreneurs and CEO's didnt have to make their own lunch, you might have a point. Unfortuantely nothing about her philosophy actually says that. You're like every other Rand basher out there. You really don't know shit about the philosophy, only what someone else who doesn't know shit about it thinks. In short what those entreprenuers would do under Rand's philosophy, in the opinion of this moron cartoonist, simply isnt' accurate. You might be better off actually making your OWN argument.


----------



## Big Fitz

whitehall said:


> Sorry to bust your bubble Iran. Life doesn't imitate art except in the minds of fools who grew up watching MTV.


You don't get out much, do you?


----------



## Intense

MarcATL said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not expect this movie to be either a critical success or a box office smash, either.
> 
> The subject matter itself (regardless of what you think of Rand or her toxic social theories) just doesn't appeal much to the average movie goer.
> 
> I'll probably watch it if I can, but then I'm not remotely part of an average movie audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking of going to watch it, mostly to see the mass of RWers lap it up like the mindless lemmings they are.
> 
> However, I thought about it and I wont spend a red cent on that swill.
> 
> I'll just wait for it to be released on DVD in 3 to 4 weeks and download it from the Torrents.
Click to expand...


I don't advise you watching it either Marc. You have good Survival Instinct.


----------



## Big Fitz

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's cute watching you whip out one liners, and you could be right. The movie might suck. But clever as you think you are, I have yet to hear an actual argument as to any fallacy of her philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were actually accurate that Rand's philosophy somehow stipulated that entrepreneurs and CEO's didnt have to make their own lunch, you might have a point. Unfortuantely nothing about her philosophy actually says that. You're like every other Rand basher out there. You really don't know shit about the philosophy, only what someone else who doesn't know shit about it thinks. In short what those entreprenuers would do under Rand's philosophy, in the opinion of this moron cartoonist, simply isnt' accurate. You might be better off actually making your OWN argument.
Click to expand...

Another constant failing of Rand bashers is that they don't see how it works for the poor.  They also have ownership and the right to their labor and profit from their work.  It's about people who do, make and create.  The drivers of the world are not all captains of industry who made their own businesses.  They are just the best examples.  If you actually read the book and understand how John Galt became who he was, you know that it's not about only the rich.

The brave souls who buck convention and stand up to create and make a better world are the ones who we should honor.  Not the faceless masses who tear down the brilliant.  The individual has the right to exist, experiment, triumph or fall in their own right and owe no fealty or debt to those who could benefit or have need.


----------



## Immanuel

Big Fitz said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were actually accurate that Rand's philosophy somehow stipulated that entrepreneurs and CEO's didnt have to make their own lunch, you might have a point. Unfortuantely nothing about her philosophy actually says that. You're like every other Rand basher out there. You really don't know shit about the philosophy, only what someone else who doesn't know shit about it thinks. In short what those entreprenuers would do under Rand's philosophy, in the opinion of this moron cartoonist, simply isnt' accurate. You might be better off actually making your OWN argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another constant failing of Rand bashers is that they don't see how it works for the poor.  They also have ownership and the right to their labor and profit from their work.  It's about people who do, make and create.  The drivers of the world are not all captains of industry who made their own businesses.  They are just the best examples.  If you actually read the book and understand how John Galt became who he was, you know that it's not about only the rich.
> 
> The brave souls who buck convention and stand up to create and make a better world are the ones who we should honor.  Not the faceless masses who tear down the brilliant.  The individual has the right to exist, experiment, triumph or fall in their own right and owe no fealty or debt to those who could benefit or have need.
Click to expand...


I'm almost halfway through the book.  Who is John Galt?

Wait!!! Don't spoil it for me, I want to read the rest of the book.  It is a lot better than I expected.

Immie


----------



## MarcATL

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking of going to watch it, mostly to see the mass of RWers lap it up like the mindless lemmings they are.
> 
> However, I thought about it and I wont spend a red cent on that swill.
> 
> I'll just wait for it to be released on DVD in 3 to 4 weeks and download it from the Torrents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typically liberal insisting someone else to pay for what he wants. What a shock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He never said he wouldn't pay. He just said he would defer the satisfaction of laughing at it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged may make a good substitute for Rocky Horror Picture Show
> 
> They could show it midnight on Saturdays and the audience can laugh and throw things at the screen
Click to expand...


Exactly!


----------



## draper

Atlas Shrugged will NOT change the face of American Politics.

It is shite written by a particularly ugly propagandist who didn't have the balls to sign up for medicare and social security under his/her own name.  However, blame the liberal elite Hollywood folk if you like for its poor reviews and failure.

Have fun wanking to it.


----------



## midcan5

"While Whittaker Chambers&#8217; famous 1957 condemnation of Rand may sound over-torqued half a century later: &#8220;From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: &#8220;To a gas chamber &#8212; go!&#8221; It remains true that Ayn Rand seems to revel in the death and destruction that follows by disregarding her philosophy: most famously in the ghoulish scene in Atlas Shrugged where Rand details the suffocation of the passengers on a train as it enters a tunnel. Rand explains how everyone on the train deserved to die because they held incorrect ideas: "It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them."" Tea Party Embraces Ayn Rand | FrumForum  and http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/164072-ayn-rand-conservatives-tea-party-republicans.html


----------



## Bern80

draper said:


> Atlas Shrugged will NOT change the face of American Politics.
> 
> It is shite written by a particularly ugly propagandist who didn't have the balls to sign up for medicare and social security under his/her own name.  However, blame the liberal elite Hollywood folk if you like for its poor reviews and failure.
> 
> Have fun wanking to it.



.....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy. 

It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?


----------



## Intense

MarcATL said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typically liberal insisting someone else to pay for what he wants. What a shock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He never said he wouldn't pay. He just said he would defer the satisfaction of laughing at it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged may make a good substitute for Rocky Horror Picture Show
> 
> They could show it midnight on Saturdays and the audience can laugh and throw things at the screen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!
Click to expand...


Great Idea. Throw in "1984", "Brave New World", "Future Shock", and "Soylent Green". How about "Animal Farm"??? Party till Dawn! Love it!!! Throw in "Empire Of The Sun" and I'll bring my whole Family!


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> draper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged will NOT change the face of American Politics.
> 
> It is shite written by a particularly ugly propagandist who didn't have the balls to sign up for medicare and social security under his/her own name.  However, blame the liberal elite Hollywood folk if you like for its poor reviews and failure.
> 
> Have fun wanking to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.
> 
> It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?
Click to expand...


Heres an argument

Atlas Shrugged has been out for over 50 years and not one singe nation on earth has embraced objectivism as a practical theory


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Heres an argument
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has been out for over 50 years and not one singe nation on earth has embraced objectivism as a practical theory



Actually that's not an argument at all. That isn't evidence that there is a problem with the philosophy much less specifically what that problem is. Keep trying righty.


----------



## Mr Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> draper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged will NOT change the face of American Politics.
> 
> It is shite written by a particularly ugly propagandist who didn't have the balls to sign up for medicare and social security under his/her own name.  However, blame the liberal elite Hollywood folk if you like for its poor reviews and failure.
> 
> Have fun wanking to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.
> 
> It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heres an argument
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has been out for over 50 years and not one singe nation on earth has embraced objectivism as a practical theory
Click to expand...


Yes and they are all in deep financial trouble because of progressive socialism.


----------



## draper

Bern80 said:


> draper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged will NOT change the face of American Politics.
> 
> It is shite written by a particularly ugly propagandist who didn't have the balls to sign up for medicare and social security under his/her own name.  However, blame the liberal elite Hollywood folk if you like for its poor reviews and failure.
> 
> Have fun wanking to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.
> 
> It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?
Click to expand...


OK, constructive criticism.  Our "hero" Dagny Taggart is the head of a rail road company.  Big gubberment is trying to stop him.  

Back in the _real world_, when the liberals wanted to build high speed rail links, what did the conservatives do?  

It shows how dated the philosophy is.

That, and if this woman made so much money writing books, why did she not save any of it instead of cowardly signing up for medicare and social security under a different name?


----------



## Big Fitz

Intense said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> He never said he wouldn't pay. He just said he would defer the satisfaction of laughing at it.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged may make a good substitute for Rocky Horror Picture Show
> 
> They could show it midnight on Saturdays and the audience can laugh and throw things at the screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Idea. Throw in "1984", "Brave New World", "Future Shock", and "Soylent Green". How about "Animal Farm"??? Party till Dawn! Love it!!! Throw in "Empire Of The Sun" and I'll bring my whole Family!
Click to expand...

And in this cavalcade of calamitous hillarity, let's add Schindler's List, Logan's Run and Metropolis (original silent).  Laugh!  Throw objects!  Heckle!  Enjoy the fantastic follies of Futurist fantasy fun with fits of fascism!  Free armband for the first 200 ticket holders.


----------



## boedicca

Here's how Obama Shrugs:


----------



## konradv

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heres an argument
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has been out for over 50 years and not one singe nation on earth has embraced objectivism as a practical theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's not an argument at all. That isn't evidence that there is a problem with the philosophy much less specifically what that problem is. Keep trying righty.
Click to expand...


Read up.  There's been plenty said about what's wrong with her philosophy.

Critiques Of Libertarianism: Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand).

Here's an excerpt from one of the pages included in the above cite:

_Although David Kelley, Leonard Peikoff, and others now try to develop her thought into a complete philosophical system, nothing can hide the relative shallowness of her knowledge:  She despised Immanuel Kant but then actually invokes "treating persons as ends rather than as means only" to explain the nature of morality. Perhaps she had picked that up without realizing it was from Kant [note]. At the same time, the Nietzschean inspiration that evidently is behind her "virtue of selfishness" approach to ethics seems to have embarrassed her later:  She very properly realized that, since the free market is built upon voluntary exchanges, capitalism requires firm moral limits, ruling out violence, coercion, fraud, etc. That was certainly not a concern of Nietzsche, but it was very much a concern of Adam Smith, who realized that, in a context of mutually voluntary exchange, people will always go for the best deal, producing the "invisible hand" effect of mutual and public goods being produced by private preferences. This confuses people enough in regard to Smith; and that makes it all the easier to mistakenly see Rand as advocating a view of capitalists as righteous predators -- especially unfortunate when the popular vision of laissez-faire capitalism is already of merciless and oppressive robber barons. A careful reading of Rand dispels that idea, but her rhetoric works against a good understanding. 

Rand also confuses her case with her emphasis on individuals being deliberately "rational." That sets her against the Austrian and Chicago principles of economics that the free market is the means of coordinating limited knowledge, not some place where rationalistic supermen (e.g. the John Galt of Atlas Shrugged) display superhuman intellectual and moral powers. That makes it sound like the free market works just because such supermen exist to control it. Rand herself was actually aware that was not true:  At her best moments she asserts only that capitalism is superior because it automatically, through the "invisible hand," rewards the more rational behavior, not because some superrational persons must exist to hand out those rewards. That would have been F.A. Hayek's "intentionalistic fallacy." Nevertheless, one is left with the impression that Rand and her "Objectivist" successors do commit Hayek's "fatal conceit" by supposing that heroic characters will exercise a superrationalistic control over themselves and the economy, and that capitalism is not really a way of coping with ignorance, or with dispersed knowledge. _Ayn Rand, Anti-Communism, & the Left


----------



## editec

Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.

If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.

Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?


----------



## Bern80

draper said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> draper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged will NOT change the face of American Politics.
> 
> It is shite written by a particularly ugly propagandist who didn't have the balls to sign up for medicare and social security under his/her own name.  However, blame the liberal elite Hollywood folk if you like for its poor reviews and failure.
> 
> Have fun wanking to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.
> 
> It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, constructive criticism.  Our "hero" Dagny Taggart is the head of a rail road company.  Big gubberment is trying to stop him.
> 
> Back in the _real world_, when the liberals wanted to build high speed rail links, what did the conservatives do?
> 
> It shows how dated the philosophy is.
> 
> That, and if this woman made so much money writing books, why did she not save any of it instead of cowardly signing up for medicare and social security under a different name?
Click to expand...


Still not seeing an argument here.......


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.
> 
> If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.
> 
> Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?



Because that isn't what her social contract says. There is one quote in the book that most encapsulates her philosophy when Hank Rearden states: "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." Otherwise stated, my right to pursue what I want to pursue is not tied to an obligation on my part to take care of you. I fail to see what is sociopathic about such a position.


----------



## Big Fitz

Bern80 said:


> draper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.
> 
> It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, constructive criticism.  Our "hero" Dagny Taggart is the head of a rail road company.  Big gubberment is trying to stop him.
> 
> Back in the _real world_, when the liberals wanted to build high speed rail links, what did the conservatives do?
> 
> It shows how dated the philosophy is.
> 
> That, and if this woman made so much money writing books, why did she not save any of it instead of cowardly signing up for medicare and social security under a different name?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not seeing an argument here.......
Click to expand...

Holy Genderbender, Batman!

Dagny's a HE???  Well Hell!  Isn't THIS a modern twist.  I never realized it or that "he" was gay!  Poor poor Hank Rearden.  But then again, the steel industry has been gay for decades, hasn't it?


----------



## draper

Bern80 said:


> draper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....still waiting for an objective rationale argument as to the deficencies of Rand's philosopy.
> 
> It truly is amazing. From my close friends who refuse to read the book to you lib tards here, the best you can do is 'it's shite' or post stupid comics, or proclaim 'well I just don't like it'. Yet none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to the deficencies of objectivist philosophy or why, if followed, it would harm society. How long do I have to wait before you idiot liberals progress past immature condemnations normally reserved for the average 12 year old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, constructive criticism.  Our "hero" Dagny Taggart is the head of a rail road company.  Big gubberment is trying to stop him.
> 
> Back in the _real world_, when the liberals wanted to build high speed rail links, what did the conservatives do?
> 
> It shows how dated the philosophy is.
> 
> That, and if this woman made so much money writing books, why did she not save any of it instead of cowardly signing up for medicare and social security under a different name?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not seeing an argument here.......
Click to expand...


No argument because you didn't answer my questions.  

Peace.


----------



## Big Fitz

editec said:


> Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.
> 
> If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.
> 
> Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?


You need to read what you're criticizing and not just the cliff notes or wiki.

Big gubmint is not trying to "stop" Taggart Transcontinental.  If you read the book you'd get that.  They're trying to control Hank Rearden and control ALL industry to be host for their parasitism.  Too bad John Galt, Ragnar Danneskold and another whom shall remain nameless to those actually interested in reading the book, keeps fucking up the works for em.

And as for going after Rand personally, it does nothing to help your argument.  By the converse, using your logic... why should you be allowed to earn anything beyond what government decides you need to survive and continue to serve them?


----------



## editec

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.
> 
> If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.
> 
> Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that isn't what her social contract says. There is one quote in the book that most encapsulates her philosophy when Hank Rearden states: "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." Otherwise stated, my right to pursue what I want to pursue is not tied to an obligation on my part to take care of you. I fail to see what is sociopathic about such a position.
Click to expand...

 
Refutation of the social contract (that gives capitalists so much of the pie) by the abandoment of the society as they take what they believe is THEIR wealth  is the ideals of_ *sociopathic capitalism*_*.*

What this philosophy is really doing (and what we are really doing as a society, too, I note) is *ignoring the fact that the capital those people have was the net output of the workers that the workers did not realize in their paychecks..*

Now I have NO problem with the social contract that gives capitalist the right to take more than a workers share of the wealth that the workers produce.  _that system createsthe SEED CORN for future social development._

But when the capitalists take the nation's seed corn and plant it in other nations, and worse, they do so in nations whose workers are in DIRECT COMPETITON with Amnerican workers? 

That_ kind of *economic TREASON* by CAPITAL_ I have a serious problem with.

And that is how FREE TRADE is working out, Bern. And that is exactly how it has been (but did not need to be)  DESIGNED to work out, too.

The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMERICAN workers did not get as pay.

It is not _MORALLY_ the property of the capitalist class...unless you sign on to the Rnndian POV, where society really doesn't exist, and is nothing but childish theory, and where the _only the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the individal_ matters.

I understand you believe that, but I know damned well no society can work that way for very long before it falls apart.

Yeah, ATLAS SHRUGGED is really nothing but a apology for the CLASS WAR that we are currently in, Bern.

And unless you personally happen to be one of those extrmely well heeled capitalists (and my guess is that you are not remotely that) what you believe is justice is anything but justice.

Perhaps you are as yet not bespattered by the economic shitstorm these policies are spewing on most Americans.

But you will be soon enough, believe me.

When societies truly fall apart it tends to be the affluent in society (but NOT the superrich, they're long gone and well protected by that time)that have the MOST to lose.

You may think that your guns or your MREs will be enough resources that you be able to weather a complete breakdown in society, but history indicates that people like you aren't going to like the outcome of that RANDIAN philosphy when it achieves ENDGAME.

the ENDGAME of Atlas Shrugged is a complete breakdown of society.

And when the people go mad and things just don't work anymore,  you are going to MISS civilization, sport.

That cicilization is sustaining you in ways you apparently cannot see,

But I promise you you'll recognize how much it was doing for you when it STOPS functioning.


----------



## MarcATL

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.
> 
> If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.
> 
> Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that isn't what her social contract says. There is one quote in the book that most encapsulates her philosophy when Hank Rearden states: "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." Otherwise stated, my right to pursue what I want to pursue is not tied to an obligation on my part to take care of you. I fail to see what is sociopathic about such a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refutation of the contract that gave capitalists so much, by the abandoment of the society as the wealth is taken out of the economy is the ideals of_ sociopathic capitalist_.
> 
> What this philosophy  is really doing (and what we are really doing as a society, too, I note) is *ignoring the fact that the capital those people have was the net output of the workers that the workers did not realize in their paychecks..*
> 
> Now I have NO problem with the social contract that gives capitalist the right to take more than a workers share of the wealth that the workers produce, _that is supposed to be SEED CORN for future development._
> 
> But when the capitalist take the nation's seed corn and plants it in other nations, and worse nations whose workers are in DIRECT COMPETITON with Amnerican workers>
> 
> That_ economic TREASON_ I have a problem with.
> 
> And that is how FREE TRADE is working out, Bern.  And that is exactly how it is DESIGNED tpow work out, too.
> 
> The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMJERICAN workers did not get as pay, and is not MORALLY  the property of the capitalist class...un;ess you sign on to the RAndian POV where society is a childish theory and only the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the individal matters
> 
> Yeah, ATLAS SHRUGGED is really nothing but a apology for the CLASS WAR that we are currently in.
> 
> And unless you personally happen to be one of those extrmely well heeled capitalists (and my guess you are not remotely that) what you believe is justice is anything but justice.
> 
> Perhaps you are as yet not bespattered by the economic shitstorm these policies are spewing on most Ameircans.
> 
> But you will be soon enough, believe me.
> 
> Whenh societies fall apart it tends to be the affluent in society (but NOT the superrich, they're long gone and well protected by that time)that have the MOST to lose.
> 
> You may think that your guns or your MREs will be enough resources that you be able to  weather a complete breakdown in society, but history indicates that people like you aren't going to like the outcome of that RANDIAN philosphy when it achieves ENDGAME.
> 
> When the people go mad, which is what happens when time truly get weird, *nobody *does well.
Click to expand...


Post of the thread!


----------



## Samson

editec said:


> The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMERICAN workers did not get as pay.



Sometimes I can pick an amusing nugget out of the pile of mindless blather that usually represents your thoughts.

Why aren't 20 million Mexican Migrants following "wealth that is migrating offshore?"


----------



## editec

Samson said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMERICAN workers did not get as pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes I can pick an amusing nugget out of the pile of mindless blather that usually represents your thoughts.
> 
> Why aren't 20 million Mexican Migrants following "wealth that is migrating offshore?"
Click to expand...

 
You question indicates to me that nothing I wrote made much sense to you.

I can live with that, Sam.

You'll get it soon enough when this formerly wealthy society collapses.

You see, Sam, contrary to what you apparently believe, the wealthy _are not_ the foundation of wealth in a capitalistic society.

Workers are.

And when the system allows its capitalist to migrate that wealth away from the society that originally created it, that society, much like a farm without seed corn, lays fallow.

ATlas has been systematically moving American made WEALTH offshore.  That is why millions and millions of otherwise prodductive Americans cannot find work.  Their jobs have migrated with the capital.

WE are just now beginning to see the net result of that foolish policiy.

Why do you think the USD is collapsing?

Overspe4nding?

Well certainly that is half the problem.

The other half, and the only half that we might be able to do anything meaningful about, is our trade policies.

I am on board with the Founding fathers in this regard.

They understood, as most apologists for the Randian POV do not, that protecting a nations industrial based demands sane trade policies,

That is why for the most part during first nearly 200 years that this society existed, we had protective tariffs to encourage investment into our industrial growth.

Behind that curtain of tariffs, this nation grew from a small agricultural nation of little consequence, to the largest wealthiest CREDITOR nation on earth.

Now note that we are the lasrgest DEBTOR nation on earth?

Why?

Because millions of us do not work, and the government is trying to offset that change in policy with various (mostly useless) social programs.

They aren't the CAUSE of our insolvency, they are the SYMPTOMS of it.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.
> 
> If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.
> 
> Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that isn't what her social contract says. There is one quote in the book that most encapsulates her philosophy when Hank Rearden states: "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." Otherwise stated, my right to pursue what I want to pursue is not tied to an obligation on my part to take care of you. I fail to see what is sociopathic about such a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refutation of the social contract (that gives capitalists so much of the pie) by the abandoment of the society as they take what they believe is THEIR wealth  is the ideals of_ *sociopathic capitalism*_*.*
> 
> What this philosophy is really doing (and what we are really doing as a society, too, I note) is *ignoring the fact that the capital those people have was the net output of the workers that the workers did not realize in their paychecks..*
> 
> Now I have NO problem with the social contract that gives capitalist the right to take more than a workers share of the wealth that the workers produce.  _that system createsthe SEED CORN for future social development._
> 
> But when the capitalists take the nation's seed corn and plant it in other nations, and worse, they do so in nations whose workers are in DIRECT COMPETITON with Amnerican workers?
> 
> That_ kind of *economic TREASON* by CAPITAL_ I have a serious problem with.
> 
> And that is how FREE TRADE is working out, Bern. And that is exactly how it has been (but did not need to be)  DESIGNED to work out, too.
> 
> The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMERICAN workers did not get as pay.
> 
> It is not _MORALLY_ the property of the capitalist class...unless you sign on to the Rnndian POV, where society really doesn't exist, and is nothing but childish theory, and where the _only the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the individal_ matters.
> 
> I understand you believe that, but I know damned well no society can work that way for very long before it falls apart.
> 
> Yeah, ATLAS SHRUGGED is really nothing but a apology for the CLASS WAR that we are currently in, Bern.
> 
> And unless you personally happen to be one of those extrmely well heeled capitalists (and my guess is that you are not remotely that) what you believe is justice is anything but justice.
> 
> Perhaps you are as yet not bespattered by the economic shitstorm these policies are spewing on most Americans.
> 
> But you will be soon enough, believe me.
> 
> When societies truly fall apart it tends to be the affluent in society (but NOT the superrich, they're long gone and well protected by that time)that have the MOST to lose.
> 
> You may think that your guns or your MREs will be enough resources that you be able to weather a complete breakdown in society, but history indicates that people like you aren't going to like the outcome of that RANDIAN philosphy when it achieves ENDGAME.
> 
> the ENDGAME of Atlas Shrugged is a complete breakdown of society.
> 
> And when the people go mad and things just don't work anymore,  you are going to MISS civilization, sport.
> 
> That cicilization is sustaining you in ways you apparently cannot see,
> 
> But I promise you you'll recognize how much it was doing for you when it STOPS functioning.
Click to expand...


There is no justice in you believing you are entitled to anything of mine. There is no justice in the notion that an American entreprenuer is obligated to provided jobs only to Americans. 

Capitalism nor Rand say that one should take whatever they can. They say people should be able to freely associate and engage in transactions based on terms agreed upon by both parties without anyone elses interference. 

In atlas shrugged there were actually two societies, Galt's valley did not deteriorate because everyone agreed on the terms soceity operated under. The outside world did not. That is the civilization that deteriorated. It deteriorated because those that were holding up society through the jobs and technology they created refused to go on not having a say over their lives or how what they produced was distributed. So they took their proverbial ball and left. The outside world decided it was entitled to what other's produced. The member's of Galt's society said 'no you are not entitled to what I produce. You are welcome to compensate me in exchange for what i produce, but I don't owe you or society at large anything with no sacrafice on our part.

THAT is how society fell apart in atlas shrugged ed. The producers said they were tired of you whinning sniveling ungrateful pieces of shit, labeling them as the enemies of society all while reaping the benefits of the compensation of the jobs they created and the technology they produced. They decided to say 'fuck you parasites, you want a society without us 'evil' capitialists. Well. here it comes. Enjoy." And ta da society fell apart.


----------



## editec

Big Fitz said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.
> 
> If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.
> 
> Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read what you're criticizing and not just the cliff notes or wiki.
> 
> Big gubmint is not trying to "stop" Taggart Transcontinental. If you read the book you'd get that. They're trying to control Hank Rearden and control ALL industry to be host for their parasitism. Too bad John Galt, Ragnar Danneskold and another whom shall remain nameless to those actually interested in reading the book, keeps fucking up the works for em.
> 
> And as for going after Rand personally, it does nothing to help your argument. By the converse, using your logic... why should you be allowed to earn anything beyond what government decides you need to survive and continue to serve them?
Click to expand...

 
I don't really understand how you think my quote has anything to do with what you wrote above, Fritz.

I wasn't addressing that issue or any issue involving the plot, _at all._

And I admit I haven't read AS, probably since before you were born, but I suspect I probably still know more about that book that the vast majority of people here who claim to have read it and love it.

For example, Dafney is a FEMALE.

Now how could anybody who read that book forget _that?_

She was, after all, RAPED. 

As I recall that was the only time that women ever got laid, too.

It was so obvious that rape was Ayns fantasy, too,

I mean I got THAT when I was like 14 and still a virgin.

Rand was so obviously a sick women.  Her characters and her values are very confused and sociopathic.


 Go reread that rape scene and tell me that you think that is what goes the head of a woman who is REALLY being raped.

The woman (and her misanthropic insanity) is a transparent as a pane of glass.


----------



## konradv

Samson said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMERICAN workers did not get as pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes I can pick an amusing nugget out of the pile of mindless blather that usually represents your thoughts.
> 
> Why aren't 20 million Mexican Migrants following "wealth that is migrating offshore?"
Click to expand...


Can't swim?


----------



## Immanuel

editec said:


> Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.
> 
> If one tries to base a civilization on that philosophy, one will soon discover that it won't work.
> 
> *Why should people sign onto the a social contract that dismisses them as nothing but sheep to be sheared?*



I'm just about half way through the book, but isn't that what Rand was warning against?  I mean, the government in "Atlas" seems to have dismissed the "public" as nothing more than sheep to be sheared.

Come on people! This is a work of fiction.  That is all it is.  It shows what would happen if big government were to be allowed to run its progressive course unimpeded.  As far as I am concerned it shows why we need conservatives AND liberals in government.  It is a far-fetched reality, because things are not going to be allowed to go to those extremes... er at least I hope they won't!

Immie


----------



## konradv

*Bern80 sez:

They say people should be able to freely associate and engage in transactions based on terms agreed upon by both parties without anyone elses interference. *

That only works, if there are only two people.  Two people could agree on all sorts of things that effect me.  You may say I can't interfere, but the reality is that they'd be interfering with me.  It's that kind of simple-minded thinking that's the ultimate downfall of Randism and libertarianism for that matter.  Too many details just don't work out when you examine them fully.  In my hypothetical case would pollution by two neighbors agreeing to something and fouling the stream that runs through my property be allowed, because my complaints would be interfering?  If it's not, who makes the rules and sets the penalties.  Sounds like an "interfering" government to me.


----------



## Bern80

MarcATL said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that isn't what her social contract says. There is one quote in the book that most encapsulates her philosophy when Hank Rearden states: "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." Otherwise stated, my right to pursue what I want to pursue is not tied to an obligation on my part to take care of you. I fail to see what is sociopathic about such a position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refutation of the contract that gave capitalists so much, by the abandoment of the society as the wealth is taken out of the economy is the ideals of_ sociopathic capitalist_.
> 
> What this philosophy  is really doing (and what we are really doing as a society, too, I note) is *ignoring the fact that the capital those people have was the net output of the workers that the workers did not realize in their paychecks..*
> 
> Now I have NO problem with the social contract that gives capitalist the right to take more than a workers share of the wealth that the workers produce, _that is supposed to be SEED CORN for future development._
> 
> But when the capitalist take the nation's seed corn and plants it in other nations, and worse nations whose workers are in DIRECT COMPETITON with Amnerican workers>
> 
> That_ economic TREASON_ I have a problem with.
> 
> And that is how FREE TRADE is working out, Bern.  And that is exactly how it is DESIGNED tpow work out, too.
> 
> The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMJERICAN workers did not get as pay, and is not MORALLY  the property of the capitalist class...un;ess you sign on to the RAndian POV where society is a childish theory and only the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the individal matters
> 
> Yeah, ATLAS SHRUGGED is really nothing but a apology for the CLASS WAR that we are currently in.
> 
> And unless you personally happen to be one of those extrmely well heeled capitalists (and my guess you are not remotely that) what you believe is justice is anything but justice.
> 
> Perhaps you are as yet not bespattered by the economic shitstorm these policies are spewing on most Ameircans.
> 
> But you will be soon enough, believe me.
> 
> Whenh societies fall apart it tends to be the affluent in society (but NOT the superrich, they're long gone and well protected by that time)that have the MOST to lose.
> 
> You may think that your guns or your MREs will be enough resources that you be able to  weather a complete breakdown in society, but history indicates that people like you aren't going to like the outcome of that RANDIAN philosphy when it achieves ENDGAME.
> 
> When the people go mad, which is what happens when time truly get weird, *nobody *does well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post of the thread!
Click to expand...


Well yeah, if post of the thread meant longest post without getting single thing actually right.......


----------



## Big Fitz

editec said:
			
		

> That_ kind of *economic TREASON* by CAPITAL_ I have a serious  problem with.


Here it is, ladies and gentlemen!  The root of the parasite's complaint towards Objectivism!  That of the flea's 'right' to the dog.  That the have a right to steal from others to support themselves beyond their own efforts.  A 'divine' right to be parasites, perchance.

You have no idea how much you are shown clear as day in Atlas Shrugged as nothing more than the looters claiming ownership of the wealthy achievers because you have need.  

What next?  enslave the rich because they threaten to commit "economic treason"?  Hmmm?  What punishment do you wish to mete out on the host that wishes to be free of your parasitism?

Thank you for in one sentence exposing your true heart of hearts on the subject.  You know you are a parasite and are unrepentantly proud of it.

Game.
Set.
Match.
Career.


----------



## Bern80

konradv said:


> *Bern80 sez:
> 
> They say people should be able to freely associate and engage in transactions based on terms agreed upon by both parties without anyone elses interference. *
> 
> That only works, if there are only two people.  Two people could agree on all sorts of things that effect me.  You may say I can't interfere, but the reality is that they'd be interfering with me.  It's that kind of simple-minded thinking that's the ultimate downfall of Randism and libertarianism for that matter.  Too many details just don't work out when you examine them fully.  In my hypothetical case would pollution by two neighbors agreeing to something and fouling the stream that runs through my property be allowed, because my complaints would be interfering?  If it's not, who makes the rules and sets the penalties.  Sounds like an "interfering" government to me.



Or the problem is liberals trying to make things more complicated than they are in an effort rationalize their position. Two parties is just an example. there is nothing about objectivism or libertarian thought that says a third party is not entitled to a say if a transaction between two others would effect them.


----------



## midcan5

I see this debate continues.  People see the world as they are, as they are programmed to see it, not as it is. If the idea fits their bias great if not.... but out there in the world is a reality and the pudding is the outcome of ideas. Rand's ideas are a justification for inequality and they appeal to many as a excuse, it is always someone's fault, and if only they believed what I believe... no wonder Washington and especially our representatives in congress are considered a joke today. Our best years came about because of the great depression, odd how turmoil wakes some up. Today we slide back to stupid.

"The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.

First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role."  Henry J. Farrell (from Amazon Review) [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Politics-Washington-Richer---Turned/dp/1416588698/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (9781416588696): Paul Pierson, Jacob S. Hacker: Books[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger

A better movie about the threats of unchecked capitalism is _ Metropolis_






Wealthy industrialists keep a slave workforce underground until they decide to kill all the workers and replace them with Robots!

It has a greater chance of happening than Ayn Rands _Atlas Shrugged_


----------



## Intense

konradv said:


> *Bern80 sez:
> 
> They say people should be able to freely associate and engage in transactions based on terms agreed upon by both parties without anyone elses interference. *
> 
> That only works, if there are only two people.  Two people could agree on all sorts of things that effect me.  You may say I can't interfere, but the reality is that they'd be interfering with me.  It's that kind of simple-minded thinking that's the ultimate downfall of Randism and libertarianism for that matter.  Too many details just don't work out when you examine them fully.  In my hypothetical case would pollution by two neighbors agreeing to something and fouling the stream that runs through my property be allowed, because my complaints would be interfering?  If it's not, who makes the rules and sets the penalties.  Sounds like an "interfering" government to me.



Governments Primary responsibility is to Protect us from all enemies, Foreign and Domestic, including Harmful Business Interests, and Government's own Selfish interests. To Establish Justice Impartially and fairly. Manipulation and misinformation is the culprit here, not the fact that Private Property exists. We Need the Right to Private Property to be Free. Still, what we do does effect others. Be Fruitful, Multiply, and Replenish the Earth. the Earth is a Temple, just as the Body is a Temple. The Consent of the Governed, through reflection and Reason, is what we All should be looking towards.


----------



## Bern80

midcan5 said:


> I see this debate continues.  People see the world as they are, as they are programmed to see it, not as it is. If the idea fits their bias great if not.... but out there in the world is a reality and the pudding is the outcome of ideas. Rand's ideas are a justification for inequality and they appeal to many as a excuse, it is always someone's fault, and if only they believed what I believe... no wonder Washington and especially our representatives in congress are considered a joke today. Our best years came about because of the great depression, odd how turmoil wakes some up. Today we slide back to stupid.
> 
> "The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.
> 
> First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role."  Henry J. Farrell (from Amazon Review) Amazon.com: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (9781416588696): Paul Pierson, Jacob S. Hacker: Books




The reason the can not explain it is because they refuse to consider internal variables that separate haves and have nots and focus only on external variables to explain the disparity. For simply arguments sake we''ll call 5% of the population the haves and the rest the have nots. That isn't too far off the precentage of super wealthy and all other income in this country. Of course there are all kinds of explanations as to how that 5% to 95% split came into being. Of course the possibility exists that there governmental policies in place that make it possible for some to achieve and the rest to fail. However, another, ironically the one libs refuse to acknowledge is that just maybe the percentage of people in this country who have the motivation take the actions necessary to attain wealth is signifantly smaller than those whoe are not motivated to take those actions. 

As you can imagine I tend to believe the later is at the very least A factor (if not the overriding factor) contributing to wealth disparity in this country. And it is why you idiot libs can't solve problems. Liberal mentality says the individual is never, ever, ever, ever, EVER to blame fo the situation they are in thus there is no behavior or action on the individuals part to address that may improve their ability to increase their wealth.


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> A better movie about the threats of unchecked capitalism is _ Metropolis_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealthy industrialists keep a slave workforce underground until they decide to kill all the workers and replace them with Robots!
> 
> It has a greater chance of happening than Ayn Rands _Atlas Shrugged_



Yes because of course Ayn Rand preaches slavery. Still waiting for that semi-coherrent argument from you righty.


----------



## Intense

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better movie about the threats of unchecked capitalism is _ Metropolis_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealthy industrialists keep a slave workforce underground until they decide to kill all the workers and replace them with Robots!
> 
> It has a greater chance of happening than Ayn Rands _Atlas Shrugged_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because of course Ayn Rand preaches slavery. Still waiting for that semi-coherrent argument from you righty.
Click to expand...


The key word here is Unchecked, not Capitalism, not Free Market. No matter the system, Incompetence leads to the fall. When one abandons Principle, Reason, what's left????


----------



## MarcATL

midcan5 said:


> I see this debate continues.  People see the world as they are, as they are programmed to see it, not as it is. If the idea fits their bias great if not.... but out there in the world is a reality and the pudding is the outcome of ideas. Rand's ideas are a justification for inequality and they appeal to many as a excuse, it is always someone's fault, and if only they believed what I believe... no wonder Washington and especially our representatives in congress are considered a joke today. Our best years came about because of the great depression, odd how turmoil wakes some up. Today we slide back to stupid.
> 
> "The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.
> 
> First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role."  Henry J. Farrell (from Amazon Review) Amazon.com: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (9781416588696): Paul Pierson, Jacob S. Hacker: Books



WoW!!! Just, wow!


----------



## Samson

Intense said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better movie about the threats of unchecked capitalism is _ Metropolis_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealthy industrialists keep a slave workforce underground until they decide to kill all the workers and replace them with Robots!
> 
> It has a greater chance of happening than Ayn Rands _Atlas Shrugged_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because of course Ayn Rand preaches slavery. Still waiting for that semi-coherrent argument from you righty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key word here is Unchecked, not Capitalism, not Free Market.
> 
> No matter the system, Incompetence leads to the fall. When one abandons Principle, Reason, *what's left*????
Click to expand...


The socialist agenda of liberal dems.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better movie about the threats of unchecked capitalism is _ Metropolis_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealthy industrialists keep a slave workforce underground until they decide to kill all the workers and replace them with Robots!
> 
> It has a greater chance of happening than Ayn Rands _Atlas Shrugged_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because of course Ayn Rand preaches slavery. Still waiting for that semi-coherrent argument from you righty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key word here is Unchecked, not Capitalism, not Free Market. No matter the system, Incompetence leads to the fall. When one abandons Principle, Reason, what's left????
Click to expand...


And who keeps capitalism in check?

The Evil Gubment


----------



## Truthmatters

This rand movie is going to be a real piece of trash which will reflect the trash that is in the original work.

It will be a good thing for the political debate.


----------



## konradv

Bern80 said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see this debate continues.  People see the world as they are, as they are programmed to see it, not as it is. If the idea fits their bias great if not.... but out there in the world is a reality and the pudding is the outcome of ideas. Rand's ideas are a justification for inequality and they appeal to many as a excuse, it is always someone's fault, and if only they believed what I believe... no wonder Washington and especially our representatives in congress are considered a joke today. Our best years came about because of the great depression, odd how turmoil wakes some up. Today we slide back to stupid.
> 
> "The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.
> 
> First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role."  Henry J. Farrell (from Amazon Review) Amazon.com: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (9781416588696): Paul Pierson, Jacob S. Hacker: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the can not explain it is because they refuse to consider internal variables that separate haves and have nots and focus only on external variables to explain the disparity. For simply arguments sake we''ll call 5% of the population the haves and the rest the have nots. That isn't too far off the precentage of super wealthy and all other income in this country. Of course there are all kinds of explanations as to how that 5% to 95% split came into being. Of course the possibility exists that there governmental policies in place that make it possible for some to achieve and the rest to fail. However, another, ironically the one libs refuse to acknowledge is that just maybe the percentage of people in this country who have the motivation take the actions necessary to attain wealth is signifantly smaller than those whoe are not motivated to take those actions.
> 
> As you can imagine I tend to believe the later is at the very least A factor (if not the overriding factor) contributing to wealth disparity in this country. And it is why you idiot libs can't solve problems. Liberal mentality says the individual is never, ever, ever, ever, EVER to blame fo the situation they are in thus there is no behavior or action on the individuals part to address that may improve their ability to increase their wealth.
Click to expand...


You haven't convinced us that government policies are inhibiting people from achieving what they desire.  The exact opposite seems to be true, as the the gap between the wealthy and the others has widened over the last few decades.  The people who "create wealth" should be growing the pie, not just taking a bigger slice, according to libertarian philosophy, right?  Isn't the REAL irony, considering the Reagan Revolution and the Bush Tax Cuts, that that isn't happening?


----------



## editec

Big Fitz said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That_ kind of *economic TREASON* by CAPITAL_ I have a serious problem with.
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, ladies and gentlemen! The root of the parasite's complaint towards Objectivism! That of the flea's 'right' to the dog. That the have a right to steal from others to support themselves beyond their own efforts. A 'divine' right to be parasites, perchance.
> 
> You have no idea how much you are shown clear as day in Atlas Shrugged as nothing more than the looters claiming ownership of the wealthy achievers because you have need.
> 
> What next? enslave the rich because they threaten to commit "economic treason"? Hmmm? What punishment do you wish to mete out on the host that wishes to be free of your parasitism?
> 
> Thank you for in one sentence exposing your true heart of hearts on the subject. You know you are a parasite and are unrepentantly proud of it.
> 
> Game.
> Set.
> Match.
> Career.
Click to expand...

 
I definitely do understand your position, Fritz.

You are an objectivist libertarian that does not believe in the social contract.

Given _that_ supposition, your position, and your objection to mine is logical.

Really this de3bate DOES hinge on that single issue.

Is there (or rather now, was there ever, because clearly there is none now as far as you believe) an IMPLICIT social contract.

I posit that there is, and that when Atlas Shrugs, he does so in violation of that contract.

You do not since you do not believe in that social contract.

I mean we can beat each other up, we can call each other names, but why bother?

Really that single issue (the social contract) is the issue upon which the entire schizm in this society is based.

So what you see as merely invididuals taking their property to another land, I see as the betrayal of the social contract. 

What you characterize as benign market forces, I characterize as malignant market treason

The money that they take to another land and use against the well being of this nation and its economy is, AFAIC, not theirs to do _THAT_ with.

The social contract of capitalism implies that the profits collected by the wealthy_ IS their property_, but it ought NOT be property that is then _employed to bite the hands that FED it to begin with._

Is thinking that manner makes me a communist?

Then guess what lad...so were the FOUNDING FATHERS.

They ALSO understood that with great wealth comes great *social *responsibility.

And part of that responsiblity is to support YOUR NATION, the nation which made it possible for YOU to make so much money in the first place.

All you and I can do here, is agree to disagree about this single issue.

But it is that single issue which is at the heart of pretty much every debate that the left and right really has.

That is why this debate never get resolved....it is an impasse.

It is truly a thesis and antithesis colliding in the public square.

But hey I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you.

Your team is winning, right?

Their capital comes and goes across national borders and owes NO ALLIGIANCE to the nations which made it possible for capitalists to amass their vast capital.

But ehere's what you cannot do, if you take that position.

You cannot tell me that you love this nation.

The people you support do not love this nation more than they love their CAPITAL.

Hey, that's okay, just so long as they don't wrap themselves in a flag of sunshine patriotism while they're busy fucking the nation that made them (or more likely their daddies or grandfathers) so rich in the first place.


----------



## Truthmatters

They imbue certain moral superiority on the wealthy.

They are dead wrong on that.

the wealthy are just people and some are good and some are bad people.


The ones who can excell to the highest levels are the ones willing to do ANYTHING for profit.


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because of course Ayn Rand preaches slavery. Still waiting for that semi-coherrent argument from you righty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The key word here is Unchecked, not Capitalism, not Free Market. No matter the system, Incompetence leads to the fall. When one abandons Principle, Reason, what's left????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who keeps capitalism in check?
> 
> The Evil Gubment
Click to expand...


Actually no. YOU, the consumer, keep capitalism in check. YOU simply refused to hold up your end of the deal.


----------



## MarcATL

editec said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That_ kind of *economic TREASON* by CAPITAL_ I have a serious problem with.
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, ladies and gentlemen! The root of the parasite's complaint towards Objectivism! That of the flea's 'right' to the dog. That the have a right to steal from others to support themselves beyond their own efforts. A 'divine' right to be parasites, perchance.
> 
> You have no idea how much you are shown clear as day in Atlas Shrugged as nothing more than the looters claiming ownership of the wealthy achievers because you have need.
> 
> What next? enslave the rich because they threaten to commit "economic treason"? Hmmm? What punishment do you wish to mete out on the host that wishes to be free of your parasitism?
> 
> Thank you for in one sentence exposing your true heart of hearts on the subject. You know you are a parasite and are unrepentantly proud of it.
> 
> Game.
> Set.
> Match.
> Career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I definitely do understand your position, Fritz.
> 
> You are an objectivist libertarian that does not believe in the social contract.
> 
> Given _that_ supposition, your position, and your objection to mine is logical.
> 
> Really this de3bate DOES hinge on that single issue.
> 
> Is there (or rather now, was there ever, because clearly there is none now as far as you believe) an IMPLICIT social contract.
> 
> I posit that there is, and that when Atlas Shrugs, he does so in violation of that contract.
> 
> You do not since you do not believe in that social contract.
> 
> I mean we can beat each other up, we can call each other names, but why bother?
> 
> Really that single issue (the social contract) is the issue upon which the entire schizm in this society is based.
> 
> So what you see as merely invididuals taking their property to another land, I see as the betrayal of the social contract.
> 
> What you characterize as benign market forces, I characterize as malignant market treason
> 
> The money that they take to another land and use against the well being of this nation and its economy is, AFAIC, not theirs to do _THAT_ with.
> 
> The social contract of capitalism implies that the profits collected by the wealthy_ IS their property_, but it ought NOT be property that is then _employed to bite the hands that FED it to begin with._
> 
> Is thinking that manner makes me a communist?
> 
> Then guess what lad...so were the FOUNDING FATHERS.
> 
> They ALSO understood that with great wealth comes great *social *responsibility.
> 
> And part of that responsiblity is to support YOUR NATION, the nation which made it possible for YOU to make so much money in the first place.
> 
> All you and I can do here, is agree to disagree about this single issue.
> 
> But it is that single issue which is at the heart of pretty much every debate that the left and right really has.
> 
> That is why this debate never get resolved....it is an impasse.
> 
> It is truly a thesis and antithesis colliding in the public square.
> 
> But hey I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you.
> 
> Your team is winning, right?
> 
> Their capital comes and goes across national borders and owes NO ALLIGIANCE to the nations which made it possible for capitalists to amass their vast capital.
> 
> But ehere's what you cannot do, if you take that position.
> 
> You cannot tell me that you love this nation.
> 
> The people you support do not love this nation more than they love their CAPITAL.
> 
> Hey, that's okay, just so long as they don't wrap themselves in a flag of sunshine patriotism while they're busy fucking the nation that made them (or more likely their daddies or grandfathers) so rich in the first place.
Click to expand...

WoW!!


----------



## editec

Truthmatters said:


> They imbue certain moral superiority on the wealthy.


 
Yeah its an old religion with a new title. 

In the olden days they'd have been Puritans who ALSO believed that GOD make the rich rich, and only they were morally saved. The wealthy puritans  called themselves "*THE elect"*

Now it is the Randians who have taken up that _apology for selfishness_ mantra



> They are dead wrong on that.


 
You're being kinder than I am about what that really makes them.



> the wealthy are just people and some are good and some are bad people.


 
VERY true. 

Most of the very wealthy people I have met were actually extrmely decent people...at least as it regarded interpersonal issues. In the business arena I don't doubt for a moment some of them are selfish pricks.



> The ones who can excell to the highest levels are the ones willing to do ANYTHING for profit.


 
Well certainly in a land that subscribes to the theory that SELFISHNESS IS A VIRTUE, the sociopathic personality has a serious leg up in the game of economics.

And that describes this nation for the last 50 years or so rather well.


----------



## Big Fitz

Truthmatters said:


> This rand movie is going to be a real piece of trash which will reflect the trash that is in the original work.
> 
> It will be a good thing for the political debate.


Well, at least you have no interest in knowing what you're talking about.


----------



## Truthmatters

They day these people act like Jesus taught then I will respect them.


They day they dont I will excoriate them.

That day arrived long ago and its why I go after them.


----------



## Big Fitz

> You are an objectivist libertarian that does not believe in the social  contract.



You know nothing of what I am.  This proves it.


----------



## Bern80

konradv said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see this debate continues.  People see the world as they are, as they are programmed to see it, not as it is. If the idea fits their bias great if not.... but out there in the world is a reality and the pudding is the outcome of ideas. Rand's ideas are a justification for inequality and they appeal to many as a excuse, it is always someone's fault, and if only they believed what I believe... no wonder Washington and especially our representatives in congress are considered a joke today. Our best years came about because of the great depression, odd how turmoil wakes some up. Today we slide back to stupid.
> 
> "The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.
> 
> First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role."  Henry J. Farrell (from Amazon Review) Amazon.com: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (9781416588696): Paul Pierson, Jacob S. Hacker: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the can not explain it is because they refuse to consider internal variables that separate haves and have nots and focus only on external variables to explain the disparity. For simply arguments sake we''ll call 5% of the population the haves and the rest the have nots. That isn't too far off the precentage of super wealthy and all other income in this country. Of course there are all kinds of explanations as to how that 5% to 95% split came into being. Of course the possibility exists that there governmental policies in place that make it possible for some to achieve and the rest to fail. However, another, ironically the one libs refuse to acknowledge is that just maybe the percentage of people in this country who have the motivation take the actions necessary to attain wealth is signifantly smaller than those whoe are not motivated to take those actions.
> 
> As you can imagine I tend to believe the later is at the very least A factor (if not the overriding factor) contributing to wealth disparity in this country. And it is why you idiot libs can't solve problems. Liberal mentality says the individual is never, ever, ever, ever, EVER to blame fo the situation they are in thus there is no behavior or action on the individuals part to address that may improve their ability to increase their wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't convinced us that government policies are inhibiting people from achieving what they desire.  The exact opposite seems to be true, as the the gap between the wealthy and the others has widened over the last few decades.  The people who "create wealth" should be growing the pie, not just taking a bigger slice, according to libertarian philosophy, right?  Isn't the REAL irony, considering the Reagan Revolution and the Bush Tax Cuts, that that isn't happening?
Click to expand...


They are growing the pie. When Bill Gates created Microsoft, he grew the pie by not only increasing his wealth but creating jobs that created wealth for others. Most any business owner that is doing a good job such that their service or product increases in demand is going to grow the pie as they need more people to help fill the demand.


----------



## Truthmatters

Big Fitz said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> This rand movie is going to be a real piece of trash which will reflect the trash that is in the original work.
> 
> It will be a good thing for the political debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you have no interest in knowing what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Rand was a second class writer who wrote  and preached of a philosophy the American people dont agree with.


She was a champion of the wealthy.

It will fail just like it did in print.


Yes her book sold alot of copies but never was able to turn that into a real movement.

Lots of people have read her stuff over the years and found it very lacking


----------



## Big Fitz

editec said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That_ kind of *economic TREASON* by CAPITAL_ I have a serious problem with.
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, ladies and gentlemen! The root of the parasite's complaint towards Objectivism! That of the flea's 'right' to the dog. That the have a right to steal from others to support themselves beyond their own efforts. A 'divine' right to be parasites, perchance.
> 
> You have no idea how much you are shown clear as day in Atlas Shrugged as nothing more than the looters claiming ownership of the wealthy achievers because you have need.
> 
> What next? enslave the rich because they threaten to commit "economic treason"? Hmmm? What punishment do you wish to mete out on the host that wishes to be free of your parasitism?
> 
> Thank you for in one sentence exposing your true heart of hearts on the subject. You know you are a parasite and are unrepentantly proud of it.
> 
> Game.
> Set.
> Match.
> Career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I definitely do understand your position, Fritz.
> 
> You are an objectivist libertarian that does not believe in the social contract.
> 
> Given _that_ supposition, your position, and your objection to mine is logical.
> 
> Really this de3bate DOES hinge on that single issue.
> 
> Is there (or rather now, was there ever, because clearly there is none now as far as you believe) an IMPLICIT social contract.
> 
> I posit that there is, and that when Atlas Shrugs, he does so in violation of that contract.
> 
> You do not since you do not believe in that social contract.
> 
> I mean we can beat each other up, we can call each other names, but why bother?
> 
> Really that single issue (the social contract) is the issue upon which the entire schizm in this society is based.
> 
> So what you see as merely invididuals taking their property to another land, I see as the betrayal of the social contract.
> 
> What you characterize as benign market forces, I characterize as malignant market treason
> 
> The money that they take to another land and use against the well being of this nation and its economy is, AFAIC, not theirs to do _THAT_ with.
> 
> The social contract of capitalism implies that the profits collected by the wealthy_ IS their property_, but it ought NOT be property that is then _employed to bite the hands that FED it to begin with._
> 
> Is thinking that manner makes me a communist?
> 
> Then guess what lad...so were the FOUNDING FATHERS.
> 
> They ALSO understood that with great wealth comes great *social *responsibility.
> 
> And part of that responsiblity is to support YOUR NATION, the nation which made it possible for YOU to make so much money in the first place.
> 
> All you and I can do here, is agree to disagree about this single issue.
> 
> But it is that single issue which is at the heart of pretty much every debate that the left and right really has.
> 
> That is why this debate never get resolved....it is an impasse.
> 
> It is truly a thesis and antithesis colliding in the public square.
> 
> But hey I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you.
> 
> Your team is winning, right?
> 
> Their capital comes and goes across national borders and owes NO ALLIGIANCE to the nations which made it possible for capitalists to amass their vast capital.
> 
> But ehere's what you cannot do, if you take that position.
> 
> You cannot tell me that you love this nation.
> 
> The people you support do not love this nation more than they love their CAPITAL.
> 
> Hey, that's okay, just so long as they don't wrap themselves in a flag of sunshine patriotism while they're busy fucking the nation that made them (or more likely their daddies or grandfathers) so rich in the first place.
Click to expand...

Wow... just wow.  

Enemies of the state... economic treason... slavery... mind crimes...  all screaming for validation.

What more is there to say other than Seig heil, Comrade.  I'm not even going to bother to respond to such colossal stupidity.  Just hope you end up in the rulership class, because otherwise... you're utterly fucked.


----------



## Truthmatters

Rand philosophy will make no ground with this second rate film of a second rate book.


----------



## Big Fitz

Truthmatters said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> This rand movie is going to be a real piece of trash which will reflect the trash that is in the original work.
> 
> It will be a good thing for the political debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you have no interest in knowing what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand was a second class writer who wrote  and preached of a philosophy the American people dont agree with.
> 
> 
> She was a champion of the wealthy.
> 
> It will fail just like it did in print.
> 
> 
> Yes her book sold alot of copies but never was able to turn that into a real movement.
> 
> Lots of people have read her stuff over the years and found it very lacking
Click to expand...

ROFL... first published in 1957... never been out of print since.  Yeah, that's a steaming pile of fail indeed.  I can see you've never read it, or understand what it is.  Someone else told you to hate it, and like a good useful idiot, you do.

I only hope I can write a novel that's such a failure.

Rand was the champion of the right for the individual to exist.  For them to keep the fruits and profits of their achievement.  The fact that success, right to property, and wealth go hand in hand is lost upon you.  The poor never improve.  The rich never decline the middle class vanish into poverty till nothing is left in your fantasy world.


----------



## Bern80

Truthmatters said:


> Rand philosophy will make no ground with this second rate film of a second rate book.



Probably not. Because the parasites of society like yourself who think they are entitled to something for nothing have outweighed those with any actual integrity.


----------



## konradv

Bern80 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the can not explain it is because they refuse to consider internal variables that separate haves and have nots and focus only on external variables to explain the disparity. For simply arguments sake we''ll call 5% of the population the haves and the rest the have nots. That isn't too far off the precentage of super wealthy and all other income in this country. Of course there are all kinds of explanations as to how that 5% to 95% split came into being. Of course the possibility exists that there governmental policies in place that make it possible for some to achieve and the rest to fail. However, another, ironically the one libs refuse to acknowledge is that just maybe the percentage of people in this country who have the motivation take the actions necessary to attain wealth is signifantly smaller than those whoe are not motivated to take those actions.
> 
> As you can imagine I tend to believe the later is at the very least A factor (if not the overriding factor) contributing to wealth disparity in this country. And it is why you idiot libs can't solve problems. Liberal mentality says the individual is never, ever, ever, ever, EVER to blame fo the situation they are in thus there is no behavior or action on the individuals part to address that may improve their ability to increase their wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't convinced us that government policies are inhibiting people from achieving what they desire.  The exact opposite seems to be true, as the the gap between the wealthy and the others has widened over the last few decades.  The people who "create wealth" should be growing the pie, not just taking a bigger slice, according to libertarian philosophy, right?  Isn't the REAL irony, considering the Reagan Revolution and the Bush Tax Cuts, that that isn't happening?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are growing the pie. When Bill Gates created Microsoft, he grew the pie by not only increasing his wealth but creating jobs that created wealth for others. Most any business owner that is doing a good job such that their service or product increases in demand is going to grow the pie as they need more people to help fill the demand.
Click to expand...


That doesn't address why wages are stagnant despite higher productivity and longer working hours.  We're using the Gates products every day, but not seeing the reward for increased productivity.


----------



## Truthmatters

Bern80 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand philosophy will make no ground with this second rate film of a second rate book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. Because the parasites of society like yourself who think they are entitled to something for nothing have outweighed those with any actual integrity.
Click to expand...


making up lies about what others believe is all you have?


----------



## Truthmatters

Big Fitz said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you have no interest in knowing what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rand was a second class writer who wrote  and preached of a philosophy the American people dont agree with.
> 
> 
> She was a champion of the wealthy.
> 
> It will fail just like it did in print.
> 
> 
> Yes her book sold alot of copies but never was able to turn that into a real movement.
> 
> Lots of people have read her stuff over the years and found it very lacking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL... first published in 1957... never been out of print since.  Yeah, that's a steaming pile of fail indeed.  I can see you've never read it, or understand what it is.  Someone else told you to hate it, and like a good useful idiot, you do.
> 
> I only hope I can write a novel that's such a failure.
> 
> Rand was the champion of the right for the individual to exist.  For them to keep the fruits and profits of their achievement.  The fact that success, right to property, and wealth go hand in hand is lost upon you.  The poor never improve.  The rich never decline the middle class vanish into poverty till nothing is left in your fantasy world.
Click to expand...


I think you dont even know what Rand championed.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That_ kind of *economic TREASON* by CAPITAL_ I have a serious problem with.
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, ladies and gentlemen! The root of the parasite's complaint towards Objectivism! That of the flea's 'right' to the dog. That the have a right to steal from others to support themselves beyond their own efforts. A 'divine' right to be parasites, perchance.
> 
> You have no idea how much you are shown clear as day in Atlas Shrugged as nothing more than the looters claiming ownership of the wealthy achievers because you have need.
> 
> What next? enslave the rich because they threaten to commit "economic treason"? Hmmm? What punishment do you wish to mete out on the host that wishes to be free of your parasitism?
> 
> Thank you for in one sentence exposing your true heart of hearts on the subject. You know you are a parasite and are unrepentantly proud of it.
> 
> Game.
> Set.
> Match.
> Career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I definitely do understand your position, Fritz.
> 
> You are an objectivist libertarian that does not believe in the social contract.
> 
> Given _that_ supposition, your position, and your objection to mine is logical.
> 
> Really this de3bate DOES hinge on that single issue.
> 
> Is there (or rather now, was there ever, because clearly there is none now as far as you believe) an IMPLICIT social contract.
> 
> I posit that there is, and that when Atlas Shrugs, he does so in violation of that contract.
> 
> You do not since you do not believe in that social contract.
> 
> I mean we can beat each other up, we can call each other names, but why bother?
> 
> Really that single issue (the social contract) is the issue upon which the entire schizm in this society is based.
> 
> So what you see as merely invididuals taking their property to another land, I see as the betrayal of the social contract.
> 
> What you characterize as benign market forces, I characterize as malignant market treason
> 
> The money that they take to another land and use against the well being of this nation and its economy is, AFAIC, not theirs to do _THAT_ with.
> 
> The social contract of capitalism implies that the profits collected by the wealthy_ IS their property_, but it ought NOT be property that is then _employed to bite the hands that FED it to begin with._
> 
> Is thinking that manner makes me a communist?
> 
> Then guess what lad...so were the FOUNDING FATHERS.
> 
> They ALSO understood that with great wealth comes great *social *responsibility.
> 
> And part of that responsiblity is to support YOUR NATION, the nation which made it possible for YOU to make so much money in the first place.
> 
> All you and I can do here, is agree to disagree about this single issue.
> 
> But it is that single issue which is at the heart of pretty much every debate that the left and right really has.
> 
> That is why this debate never get resolved....it is an impasse.
> 
> It is truly a thesis and antithesis colliding in the public square.
> 
> But hey I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you.
> 
> Your team is winning, right?
> 
> Their capital comes and goes across national borders and owes NO ALLIGIANCE to the nations which made it possible for capitalists to amass their vast capital.
> 
> But ehere's what you cannot do, if you take that position.
> 
> You cannot tell me that you love this nation.
> 
> The people you support do not love this nation more than they love their CAPITAL.
> 
> Hey, that's okay, just so long as they don't wrap themselves in a flag of sunshine patriotism while they're busy fucking the nation that made them (or more likely their daddies or grandfathers) so rich in the first place.
Click to expand...


What a steaming pile of self-righteous bullshit. 

Social contract? Bullshit you believe in social contracts. If you do it's one I've never heard of. Is it the one that says I am obligated to provide you with your standard of living? The whole social contract thing is greed personified. A concept created as an excuse for people to hold other's responsible for their outcomes. 

The social contracts i believe in are simple. I have the right to be compensated for providing you with a good or service and that compensation doesn't have any strings other than what we both agree prior to engaging in the transaction.


----------



## Samson

Truthmatters said:


> I think you dont even know what Rand championed.



I KNOW you haven't the slightest inkling.


----------



## Truthmatters

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


lets discuss it then





My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

&#8212;Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged[4]


----------



## Samson

Truthmatters said:


> Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> lets discuss it then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged[4]



Well? Go ahead, TM, and tell us what you think is wrong with that.


----------



## Bern80

Truthmatters said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand was a second class writer who wrote  and preached of a philosophy the American people dont agree with.
> 
> 
> She was a champion of the wealthy.
> 
> It will fail just like it did in print.
> 
> 
> Yes her book sold alot of copies but never was able to turn that into a real movement.
> 
> Lots of people have read her stuff over the years and found it very lacking
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL... first published in 1957... never been out of print since.  Yeah, that's a steaming pile of fail indeed.  I can see you've never read it, or understand what it is.  Someone else told you to hate it, and like a good useful idiot, you do.
> 
> I only hope I can write a novel that's such a failure.
> 
> Rand was the champion of the right for the individual to exist.  For them to keep the fruits and profits of their achievement.  The fact that success, right to property, and wealth go hand in hand is lost upon you.  The poor never improve.  The rich never decline the middle class vanish into poverty till nothing is left in your fantasy world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you dont even know what Rand championed.
Click to expand...


Okay truth. Tell us (in your opinion) what she championed. (this oughta be good)


----------



## Truthmatters

The thing wrong with that quote is that man is a pack animal.

Selfishness is counter to every human society that  is seen as good for mankind.


Rand believed that shelfishness was a vertue.


The funny thing is she hated libertarians who now call her a god.


Libertarianism and Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Rand's view of libertarians
Ayn Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism.[3] Rand said of libertarians that:

"They are not defenders of capitalism. They're a group of publicity seekers... most of them are my enemies... I've read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandled&#8212;i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them&#8212;with no credit given."[3]

In an 1981 interview, Rand described Libertarians as "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people" who "plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose."[3]


----------



## Big Fitz

> The thing wrong with that quote is that man is a pack animal.



Wrong.  A social animal.  Distinct difference.



> Selfishness is counter to every human society that  is seen as good for  mankind.



And yet in nature selfishness is considered a survival trait.  The drive to make sure you get your own needs met first and foremost.  When there is no concept of sharing and working in partnership, this is an essential trait to have.

Rand did not say objectivism is "I've got mine now fuck you".  In practice, its making sure that you get your needs and desires met.  Mazlow's hierarchy of needs reflects this too.



> Rand believed that shelfishness was a vertue.



In a society that demands self sacrifice above all, it sure as hell is.  Never heard of General Pyrrus and a Pyrrhic Victory have you?  If you sacrifice too much, you transform from a provider to a victim.



> The funny thing is she hated libertarians who now call her a god.



I only see liberals and progressives accusing libertarians of calling her a god.  Nobody else though.



> Rand's view of libertarians
> Ayn Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom  and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism.[3] Rand  said of libertarians that:
> 
> "They are not defenders of capitalism. They're a group of publicity  seekers... most of them are my enemies... I've read nothing by a  Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas  badly mishandled&#8212;i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them&#8212;with no credit  given."[3]
> 
> In an 1981 interview, Rand described Libertarians as "a monstrous,  disgusting bunch of people" who "plagiarize my ideas when that fits  their purpose."[3]



In 1981, she was mostly right.  Libertarianism back then was a few steps from anarchy which is worse than worthless.  It's dangerous.  Since that era, Libertarianism has become a third direction and path away from the two party dichotomy of growing government in different sectors while taking turns.  They've become the contrary "smaller, not no, government".  That makes it distinctly different.  It is now a respecter of government's purpose for existing, but within strict and narrow lines of power.

Again though, what are you complaining about... other than your incorrect understandings?


----------



## Samson

Truthmatters said:


> The thing wrong with that quote is that man is a pack animal.
> 
> Selfishness is counter to every human society that  is seen as good for mankind.
> 
> 
> Rand believed that shelfishness was a vertue.



You mean the quote YOU posted was a Lie?



> My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute



I don't read anything about "selfishness as a virtue." Where do you read that?

Whay are you making things up?


----------



## Old Rocks

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> YouTube - Atlas Shrugged Trailer
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



*So, this is the kind of hero your favorite author and philosopher admires. *

Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer

William Edward Hickman was one of the most famous men in America in 1928. But he came by his fame in a way that perhaps should have given pause to Ayn Rand before she decided that he was a "real man" worthy of enshrinement in her pantheon of fictional heroes. 

You see, Hickman was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer. 

Other than that, he was probably a swell guy. 

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."


----------



## Political Junky

Rand's Objectivism would appear to be synonymous with being a sociopath.


----------



## Samson

Political Junky said:


> Rand's Objectivism would appear to be synonymous with being a sociopath.



Junky's Opinion would appear to be synonymous with being a moron.


----------



## Samson

Old Rocks said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> YouTube - Atlas Shrugged Trailer
> 
> it looks good, no, great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So, this is the kind of hero your favorite author and philosopher admires. *
> 
> Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer
> 
> William Edward Hickman was one of the most famous men in America in 1928. But he came by his fame in a way that perhaps should have given pause to Ayn Rand before she decided that he was a "real man" worthy of enshrinement in her pantheon of* fictional heroes*.
Click to expand...


Michael Prescot clearly has his head so far up his ass that he cannot distinguish reality from fiction.

I imagine that's Rock's excuse too.


----------



## snjmom

> I have the right to be compensated for providing you with a good or service and that compensation doesn't have any strings other than what we both agree prior to engaging in the transaction.



That is not a social contract, other than the part about having a right. How do you protect that right to compensation? In exchange for protecting that right, certain responsibilities are due your protector. I understand that Rand didn't see things that way, but it is the inevitable truth.


----------



## Bern80

snjmom said:


> That is not a social contract, other than the part about having a right. How do you protect that right to compensation?



The right to be compensated doesn't require protection from anyone. If we don't agree to terms for compensation, I don't do business with you.



> In exchange for protecting that right, certain responsibilities are due your protector. I understand that Rand didn't see things that way, but it is the inevitable truth.



Rand was not an anarchist. She did believe that a legitimate function of government would be to protect people's property.


----------



## Immanuel

Truthmatters said:


> The thing wrong with that quote is that man is a pack animal.
> 
> Selfishness is counter to every human society that  is seen as good for mankind.
> 
> 
> Rand believed that shelfishness was a vertue.
> 
> 
> The funny thing is she hated libertarians who now call her a god.
> 
> 
> Libertarianism and Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Rand's view of libertarians
> Ayn Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism.[3] Rand said of libertarians that:
> 
> "They are not defenders of capitalism. They're a group of publicity seekers... most of them are my enemies... I've read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandledi.e., had the teeth pulled out of themwith no credit given."[3]
> 
> In an 1981 interview, Rand described Libertarians as "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people" who "plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose."[3]



You know, if you were male, you could have played either one of these characters in the book and you would not have had to act at all:  James Taggart, Orren Boyle, Wesley Mouch, Dr. Ferris and several others.  I suspect that you would have been thrilled to death if our government actually passed The Equalization of Opportunity Bill and you would have had a major coronary because you had laughed so hard if Directive 10-289 were instituted in real life.

Since you don't appear to have actually read the book, I doubt you know what those are or who those people are, but trust me, it is nothing to be proud of.

Immie


----------



## editec

Big Fitz said:


> You are an objectivist libertarian that does not believe in the social contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing of what I am. This proves it.
Click to expand...

 



Well it is true that I do not know you, but I certainly can read your words and and compare them to economic ideologies that exist,

Your objection to my original post, the single issue you focused on was EXACTLY that issue.

You objection to my point in that post was a spot on example of objective libertarian thinking.

The bedrock principle of that social theory is that the concept of community is flawed, and in fact, community really doesn't exist.

Hence, the individual owes nothing to an abstract concept that they do not believe even makes sense.

Hencem the wealthy whose fortunes were made in one nation, owes no alliangeance to that nation.

Basically that was your objection to my thoughts on ATLAS SHRUGGED.

I think the wealthy DO have a moral obligation to reinvest their capital into the nation where they originally made it.

You, and people calling themselves Randians, or sometimes objectivist libertarians, generally  don't.

That really leaves no room for serious debate on this issue, does it?


----------



## Big Fitz

editec said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an objectivist libertarian that does not believe in the social contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing of what I am. This proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is true that I do not know you, but I certainly can read your words and and compare them to economic ideologies that exist,
> 
> Your objection to my original post, the single issue you focused on was EXACTLY that issue.
> 
> You objection to my point in that post was a spot on example of objective libertarian thinking.
> 
> The bedrock principle of that social theory is that the concept of community is flawed, and in fact, community really doesn't exist.
> 
> Hence, the individual owes nothing to an abstract concept that they do not believe even makes sense.
> 
> Hencem the wealthy whose fortunes were made in one nation, owes no alliangeance to that nation.
> 
> Basically that was your objection to my thoughts on ATLAS SHRUGGED.
> 
> I think the wealthy DO have a moral obligation to reinvest their capital into the nation where they originally made it.
> 
> You, and people calling themselves Randians, or sometimes objectivist libertarians, generally  don't.
> 
> That really leaves no room for serious debate on this issue, does it?
Click to expand...

What allegiance does the nation owe to it's citizens, wealthy or otherwise?  Does not the nation have a moral obligation to them?


----------



## rightwinger

Big Fitz said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing of what I am. This proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is true that I do not know you, but I certainly can read your words and and compare them to economic ideologies that exist,
> 
> Your objection to my original post, the single issue you focused on was EXACTLY that issue.
> 
> You objection to my point in that post was a spot on example of objective libertarian thinking.
> 
> The bedrock principle of that social theory is that the concept of community is flawed, and in fact, community really doesn't exist.
> 
> Hence, the individual owes nothing to an abstract concept that they do not believe even makes sense.
> 
> Hencem the wealthy whose fortunes were made in one nation, owes no alliangeance to that nation.
> 
> Basically that was your objection to my thoughts on ATLAS SHRUGGED.
> 
> I think the wealthy DO have a moral obligation to reinvest their capital into the nation where they originally made it.
> 
> You, and people calling themselves Randians, or sometimes objectivist libertarians, generally  don't.
> 
> That really leaves no room for serious debate on this issue, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What allegiance does the nation owe to it's citizens, wealthy or otherwise?  Does not the nation have a moral obligation to them?
Click to expand...


The nation is the citizens


----------



## rightwinger

Simple question...

Everyone in America sees Atlas Shrugged and loves it. They demand we change our society to an Ayn Rand utopia. What would we get?


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Simple question...
> 
> Everyone in America sees Atlas Shrugged and loves it. They demand we change our society to an Ayn Rand utopia. What would we get?



We'd get about a million movies out of Hollywood directed by Oliver Stone Starring the Corpse of Henry Fonda and Candice Bergen and the following supporting cast:

Adam Brody

Al Franken

Alan Dershowitz

Alec Baldwin

Alice Walker

Allison Janney

Alyssa Milano

Andre 3000

Andre Agassi

Art Alexakis

Ashley Judd

Babyface

Barbara Streisand

Ben Affleck

Ben Stiller

Benjamin McKenzie

Bette Midler

Bill Bradley

Billy Crystal

Bob Saget

Bonnie Raitt

Boyz II Men

Brad Pitt

Bradley Whitford

Brian McKnight

Bright Eyes

Bruce Springsteen

Bud Selig

Cameron Diaz

Candice Bergen

Carole King

Charlize Theron

Cher

Chevy Chase

Chris Rock

Chris Tucker

Christian Slater

Christie Brinkley

Chuck D

Colin Hanks

Damien Fahey

Dana Delany

Danny Glover

Dave Grohl

Dave Matthews Band

David Cross

David Spade

Death Cab for Cutie

Demi Moore

Dennis Weaver

Diana Ross

Dixie Chicks

Doug Flutie

Dustin Hoffman

Ed Asner

Ed Harris

Eliza Dushku

Ellen DeGeneres

Eric Stoltz

Famke Janssen

Frank Sinatra

Gene Wilder

George Clooney

George Lucas

George Peppard

George Soros

Glenn Close

Green Day

Gwyneth Paltrow

Hank Aaron

Harrison Ford

Heather Graham

Helen Hunt

Herb Williams

Hulk Hogan

Jack Black

Jack Nicholson

Jackson Browne

Jada Pinkett Smith

Jake Gyllenhaal

James Caan

James Cromwell

James Garner

James Taylor

Jane Fonda

Janeane Garofalo

Janel Moloney

Jason Bateman

Jason Biggs

Jennifer Aniston

Jennifer Garner

Jennifer Lopez

Jenny McCarthy

Jerry Springer

Jessica Biel

John Cusack

John Fogerty

John Glenn

John Goodman

John Grisham

John Leguizamo

John Mayer

John McEnroe

John Mellencamp

John Travolta

Jon Bon Jovi

Jon Stewart

Joy Bryant

Jurassic 5

Kate Hudson

Keb' Mo'

Kevin Bacon

Kevin Costner

Kevin Spacey

Kimberly Guilfoyle

Kirk Douglas

Kirsten Dunst

Krista Allen

Larry David

Larry Hagman

Leigh Steinberg

Leonard Nimoy

Leonardo DiCaprio

Lewis Black

Lizz Winstead

Luther Vandross

Madonna

Margaret Cho

Marlo Thomas

Marshall Mathers

Martin Sheen

Mary Chapin Carpenter

Matt Damon

Meg Ryan

Melanie Griffith

Melissa Etheridge

Melissa Gilbert

Melissa Joan Hart

Meryl Streep

Michael Bolton

Michael Douglas

Michael Eisner

Michael J. Fox

Michael Jackson

Michael Jordan

Michael Moore

Mick Foley

Mike Farrell

Mike Richter

Muhammad Ali

My Morning Jacket

Nancy Grace

Natalie Cole

Natalie Portman

Nicole Kidman

Norman Lear

Omarosa Manigault

Oprah Winfrey

Owen Wilson

Patti LaBelle

Paul Newman

Pearl Jam

Peter Angelos

Peter Yarrow

R.E.M.

Rachel Bilson

Reese Witherspoon

Regis Philbin

Richard Gere

Richard Schiff

Rita Wilson

Rob Lowe

Rob Reiner

Robert DeNiro

Robert Redford

Robert Vaughn

Robin Williams

Ron Livingston

Ron Reagan

Russell Simmons

Sam Seder

Sara Jessica Parker

Sean Combs

Sean Penn

Serj Tankian

Sharon Stone

Sheryl Crow

Shirley MacLaine

Steve Bing

Steve Buscemi

Steven Spielberg

Stevie Wonder

Stockard Channing

Susan Sarandon

Ted Danson

Ted Turner

The Black Eyed Peas

Theo Epstein

Tim McGraw

Tim Robbins

Tom Cruise

Tom Hanks

Tom Morello

Will Rogers

Tommy Lee Jones

Vanessa Carlton

Walter Cronkite

Warren Beatty

Wendy Malick

Whoopi Goldberg

Willie Nelson

Woody Allen


----------



## Big Fitz

Sorry, due to conflicting schedules, you got Woody Allen, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen and Stiffy the Wonder Penguin.

The rest are doing a remake of "Gone With the Wind" with ensembles playing the parts of Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler.  Everyone else plays the maid or Ashley Wilkes.


----------



## snjmom

Big Fitz said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing of what I am. This proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is true that I do not know you, but I certainly can read your words and and compare them to economic ideologies that exist,
> 
> Your objection to my original post, the single issue you focused on was EXACTLY that issue.
> 
> You objection to my point in that post was a spot on example of objective libertarian thinking.
> 
> The bedrock principle of that social theory is that the concept of community is flawed, and in fact, community really doesn't exist.
> 
> Hence, the individual owes nothing to an abstract concept that they do not believe even makes sense.
> 
> Hencem the wealthy whose fortunes were made in one nation, owes no alliangeance to that nation.
> 
> Basically that was your objection to my thoughts on ATLAS SHRUGGED.
> 
> I think the wealthy DO have a moral obligation to reinvest their capital into the nation where they originally made it.
> 
> You, and people calling themselves Randians, or sometimes objectivist libertarians, generally  don't.
> 
> That really leaves no room for serious debate on this issue, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What allegiance does the nation owe to it's citizens, wealthy or otherwise?  Does not the nation have a moral obligation to them?
Click to expand...


Yes, it does. The nation has a moral obligation to protect it's citizens. That is the reason for it's existence. Just like a corporation's reason for existence is to provide profits to it's owners and has a moral obligation to do so. When it ceases to do so, it ceases to exist. Just as a nation that ceases to protect it's citizens will cease to exist.


----------



## Big Fitz

snjmom said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is true that I do not know you, but I certainly can read your words and and compare them to economic ideologies that exist,
> 
> Your objection to my original post, the single issue you focused on was EXACTLY that issue.
> 
> You objection to my point in that post was a spot on example of objective libertarian thinking.
> 
> The bedrock principle of that social theory is that the concept of community is flawed, and in fact, community really doesn't exist.
> 
> Hence, the individual owes nothing to an abstract concept that they do not believe even makes sense.
> 
> Hencem the wealthy whose fortunes were made in one nation, owes no alliangeance to that nation.
> 
> Basically that was your objection to my thoughts on ATLAS SHRUGGED.
> 
> I think the wealthy DO have a moral obligation to reinvest their capital into the nation where they originally made it.
> 
> You, and people calling themselves Randians, or sometimes objectivist libertarians, generally  don't.
> 
> That really leaves no room for serious debate on this issue, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> What allegiance does the nation owe to it's citizens, wealthy or otherwise?  Does not the nation have a moral obligation to them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. The nation has a moral obligation to protect it's citizens. That is the reason for it's existence. Just like a corporation's reason for existence is to provide profits to it's owners and has a moral obligation to do so. When it ceases to do so, it ceases to exist. Just as a nation that ceases to protect it's citizens will cease to exist.
Click to expand...

Interesting take.  Does the nation have an obligation to protect it's citizens from even itself?


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Simple question...
> 
> Everyone in America sees Atlas Shrugged and loves it. They demand we change our society to an Ayn Rand utopia. What would we get?



You would get a society free of people with an entitlement mentality. You would get a society where everyone understood that their outcomes are predominantly determined by their own behavior and choices. Since everyone understands this you would have a remarkably strong society due to very few people residing themselves to being dependent on others for their well being.


----------



## geauxtohell

So it Atlas Shrugged still blazing up the big screen?


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Simple question...
> 
> Everyone in America sees Atlas Shrugged and loves it. They demand we change our society to an Ayn Rand utopia. What would we get?



Everyone has both Good and bad within. It's being Human, Mortal.
Ayn has brought up strong points during her time here. When does Reason Prevail Right Winger? It provokes you to consider and come to your own conclusions. So what??? It's "Collective Think", "Hive Think", she is challenging, Not Reason, not Justice, not Truth. I think the challenge has made the World a better place. Than in no way means that we are limited to what limited her. She was hoping that We would learn and think for Ourselves. Consider "The Emperor's New Suit". Did it make Hans Christian Anderson an Enemy of the State???  .... Never mind, don't answer that. 

Hans Christian Andersen: The Emperor?s New Suit


----------



## QUENTIN

Big Fitz said:


> You would get a society free of people with an entitlement mentality. *You would get a society where everyone understood that their outcomes are predominantly determined by their own behavior and choices.* Since everyone understands this you would have a remarkably strong society due to very few people residing themselves to being dependent on others for their well being.



But what if this isn't true?

One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.

If everyone has the equal _opportunity_ to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.


----------



## QUENTIN

The numbers are in.

Despite an over 50% increase in number of theaters screening Atlas Shrugged, the film saw its earnings and audience drop 48% from last weekend. In its second week of release, the film failed to make a million dollars, finishing with $879,000 nationwide and at number 18 overall. Not surprisingly, given that it added 160 new theaters yet made only half what it did last weekend, its once-decent per screen average fell to just $1,890 per theater, not even making the top 25 films of the weekend by per screen average.

With a budget now being reported by IMDb and The Hollywood Reporter at closer to $15 million than the initially-reported $10 million and another $5 million or so in advertising and marketing costs, the film seems highly, highly unlikely to make back its budget given that it's only made $3 million total in two weeks of release.

Since the picture has flopped and it was merely the first in a planned trilogy of films where profits from the first film were to finance the sequels, the first installment is probably the only installment in this series we'll ever see.

So, *washamericom*, are you ready to admit you were dead wrong?



> i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.



The film is not a Hollywood production at all, so there's that. But it's also dead-on-arrival, not only not becoming a success but actually being a rather miserable failure with audiences, critics, and the market it extols. Any thoughts or response or admission now or will you avoid addressing how spectacularly off your prediction was?


----------



## Big Fitz

QUENTIN said:


> The numbers are in.
> 
> Despite an over 50% increase in number of theaters screening Atlas Shrugged, the film saw its earnings and audience drop 48% from last weekend. In its second week of release, the film failed to make a million dollars, finishing with $879,000 nationwide and at number 18 overall. Not surprisingly, given that it added 160 new theaters yet made only half what it did last weekend, its once-decent per screen average fell to just $1,890 per theater, not even making the top 25 films of the weekend by per screen average.
> 
> With a budget now being reported by IMDb and The Hollywood Reporter at closer to $15 million than the initially-reported $10 million and another $5 million or so in advertising and marketing costs, the film seems highly, highly unlikely to make back its budget given that it's only made $3 million total in two weeks of release.
> 
> Since the picture has flopped and it was merely the first in a planned trilogy of films where profits from the first film were to finance the sequels, the first installment is probably the only installment in this series we'll ever see.
> 
> So, *washamericom*, are you ready to admit you were dead wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i further suggest that this hollywood production will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> 
> 
> The film is not a Hollywood production at all, so there's that. But it's also dead-on-arrival, not only not becoming a success but actually being a rather miserable failure with audiences, critics, and the market it extols. Any thoughts or response or admission now or will you avoid addressing how spectacularly off your prediction was?
Click to expand...

Huh... Easter friggen weekend and you're writing a sequel to it's obituary that you've already pronounced 2 weeks ago.  What a big movie weekend.


----------



## QUENTIN

Big Fitz said:


> Huh... Easter friggen weekend and you're writing a sequel to it's obituary that you've already pronounced 2 weeks ago.  What a big movie weekend.



You say Easter weekend like it's a bad thing. The box-office take this week was better over this Easter weekend than it was last weekend when the film debuted or either of the last two weeks before that making it the biggest box-office weekend in April. Easter is usually is a stronger weekend than average. 

I mean, you're essentially just continuing to show that you don't know much about what you're talking about when it comes to movie release strategies, box-office performance, distribution, etc. and how the film is performing in context.

The movie has been out two weeks and made $3 million total, with a big dropoff its second week despite screening in over 50% more theaters. If it had increased its gross and maintained its per screen average in keeping with a wider release, it might have a chance to make back its money. As it is, the film is a bomb that will be a loss for its producers and is seriously unlikely to result in two more sequels unless they're drastically lower-budgeted and go straight-to-DVD, with even that being a gamble.

I wrote the obit for the film when it was clear it was dead, which it is. Now that it's tried an expansion and done worse, it has demonstrated the movie has no legs and can't continue to expand to reach a broader audience. Apparently the majority who wanted to see it saw it opening weekend and even that was very few people.

At what point are you willing to admit it has not been a major phenomenon as the OP and many others predicted and that it's at least a financial (beyond critical which can be dismissed if you like) failure? 2 more weeks? 10? A Year? Movies are made or broken by their first couple weeks in release these days and the direction this one went is quite clear from the numbers. Do you seriously expect that somewhere down the near line this film is going to blow up and be a cultural phenomenon and major hit and play a role in unseating the president (or even, at this point, making its financiers their investment back)? If so, your expectations are unrealistic given the indie film market and this film's performance.


----------



## Bern80

QUENTIN said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would get a society free of people with an entitlement mentality. *You would get a society where everyone understood that their outcomes are predominantly determined by their own behavior and choices.* Since everyone understands this you would have a remarkably strong society due to very few people residing themselves to being dependent on others for their well being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what if this isn't true?
> 
> One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.
> 
> To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.
> 
> If everyone has the equal _opportunity_ to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.
Click to expand...


We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.


----------



## konradv

Bern80 said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would get a society free of people with an entitlement mentality. *You would get a society where everyone understood that their outcomes are predominantly determined by their own behavior and choices.* Since everyone understands this you would have a remarkably strong society due to very few people residing themselves to being dependent on others for their well being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what if this isn't true?
> 
> One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.
> 
> To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.
> 
> If everyone has the equal _opportunity_ to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. *We're talking about the people who won't*.
Click to expand...


You seem to be talking about anyone who doesn't agree with you.  That's the problem with the rhetoric, you're given one example and have to throw in disclaimers.  A fully realized philosophical system wouldn't require that kind of back-tracking.


----------



## Big Fitz

QUENTIN said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Easter friggen weekend and you're writing a sequel to it's obituary that you've already pronounced 2 weeks ago.  What a big movie weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say Easter weekend like it's a bad thing. The box-office take this week was better over this Easter weekend than it was last weekend when the film debuted or either of the last two weeks before that making it the biggest box-office weekend in April. Easter is usually is a stronger weekend than average.
> 
> I mean, you're essentially just continuing to show that you don't know much about what you're talking about when it comes to movie release strategies, box-office performance, distribution, etc. and how the film is performing in context.
> 
> The movie has been out two weeks and made $3 million total, with a big dropoff its second week despite screening in over 50% more theaters. If it had increased its gross and maintained its per screen average in keeping with a wider release, it might have a chance to make back its money. As it is, the film is a bomb that will be a loss for its producers and is seriously unlikely to result in two more sequels unless they're drastically lower-budgeted and go straight-to-DVD, with even that being a gamble.
> 
> I wrote the obit for the film when it was clear it was dead, which it is. Now that it's tried an expansion and done worse, it has demonstrated the movie has no legs and can't continue to expand to reach a broader audience. Apparently the majority who wanted to see it saw it opening weekend and even that was very few people.
> 
> At what point are you willing to admit it has not been a major phenomenon as the OP and many others predicted and that it's at least a financial (beyond critical which can be dismissed if you like) failure? 2 more weeks? 10? A Year? Movies are made or broken by their first couple weeks in release these days and the direction this one went is quite clear from the numbers. Do you seriously expect that somewhere down the near line this film is going to blow up and be a cultural phenomenon and major hit and play a role in unseating the president (or even, at this point, making its financiers their investment back)? If so, your expectations are unrealistic given the indie film market and this film's performance.
Click to expand...




> The movie has been out two weeks and made $3 million total,



Okay.  So tell me, when a movie costs around 10m to make, and you make 30% of your money back in 2 weeks, is it a flop?  And this hasn't hit DVD release yet where most movies (especially small release films) now make the majority of it's money thanks to the consuming public's habits.  I see maybe 70 movies a year.  Only 1-3 of them in a theater, often second run.  All the rest is on dvd.  I wonder what will happen if they manage to get a global release?  I've no idea if they'll even be able to, but it's a curious thought since it is such an Amerocentric film.



> with a big dropoff its second week despite screening in over 50% more  theaters.



Don't over 75% of all films drop off the second week, even with screen increases?  Got numbers on that?

How many weeks did Titanic take to make back it's quarter of a billion production costs?  5-7 weeks IIRC,  Then it had a MASSIVELY long run which then made it the highest grossing film of all time.  That record may not still stand, but.. it lasted for more than a few years.



> At what point are you willing to admit it has not been a major  phenomenon as the OP



My first post on this thread?  I never agreed with the OP's premise.  I just maintain that reports of it's demise have been greatly exaggerated by people like you having heart palpitations and flop sweat over it's desired abject failure.  I think it will have a similar effect on public culture as "Expelled" and other similar size release that faced massive mainstream liberal hatred.  Will it have long lasting effects?  Possibly.  Depends on if it becomes a cult classic.  Is "Rocky Horror" a flop?  How about "The Gods Must Be Crazy"?

From IMDB:



> Didn't receive a major U.S. release until 1984.


It was originally released in 1981.



> Ran for 532 consecutive days at the Oaks Theaters in Cupertino,  California. It was pulled only because the film reels they used fell  into disrepair and a large section caught fire. After such a long run,  it was simply cost prohibitive to have the reels replaced, but the  record still stands as the longest uninterrupted run of any movie in  Northern California.



So rail away on your false premise.


----------



## Uncensored2008

MarcATL said:


> I was thinking of going to watch it, mostly to see the mass of RWers lap it up like the mindless lemmings they are.
> 
> However, I thought about it and I wont spend a red cent on that swill.
> 
> I'll just wait for it to be released on DVD in 3 to 4 weeks and download it from the Torrents.



So you'll do what leftists always do, you'll steal.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> He never said he wouldn't pay. He just said he would defer the satisfaction of laughing at it.



Yes he did, dumbfuck.

He said he would steal it from the torrents.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Immanuel said:


> I'm almost halfway through the book.  Who is John Galt?
> 
> Wait!!! Don't spoil it for me, I want to read the rest of the book.  It is a lot better than I expected.
> 
> Immie




Good for you for reading it. Rightwinger struggles through a three panel cartoon, basically the extent of the leftist intellect.


----------



## Immanuel

Uncensored2008 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm almost halfway through the book.  Who is John Galt?
> 
> Wait!!! Don't spoil it for me, I want to read the rest of the book.  It is a lot better than I expected.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you for reading it. Rightwinger struggles through a three panel cartoon, basically the extent of the leftist intellect.
Click to expand...


It is actually quite good.  I don't know how good of a movie it will make as most of us like some action in our movies and except for... well, maybe there are others who have not gotten as far along as I have so I won't spoil it... but let's just say action is not part of the plot.

The storyline is really good.  It takes things to the extreme in a way that I don't think we will ever see, but, it is only fiction.  

I am looking forward to seeing the movie when it comes to Netflix just to see how they handle the story.  But changing the face of American politics as the title of the thread states?  No, I don't think so.  For one thing, today's politicians are envious of what Wesley Mouch achieved in the story. Today's politicians are already striving for that standard so where would the change come from?

I think it is a shame that many of the people who are bashing Ms. Rand's story don't appear to have actually read it.  

Immie


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> Read up.  There's been plenty said about what's wrong with her philosophy.



Of course there has, just not by you cretins.

You can cut & paste from a hate site, it's what you do. What you DON'T do, and can't do, is formulate a rational argument on your own.


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.



So Konrad says she was stupid, you say she was a "highly intelligent sociopath."

Consistency seems low among socialists.


----------



## Uncensored2008

draper said:


> No argument because you didn't answer my questions.
> 
> Peace.



No argument because you have zero fucking knowledge about the subject.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand's philosphy is the philosophy of a highly intelligent sociopath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Konrad says she was stupid, you say she was a "highly intelligent sociopath."
> 
> Consistency seems low among socialists.
Click to expand...


I don't recall saying she was stupid.  Sociopaths usually aren't.  It's those who don't see her for what she is and the failures of her philosophy that are stupid.


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> What this philosophy is really doing (and what we are really doing as a society, too, I note) is *ignoring the fact that the capital those people have was the net output of the workers that the workers did not realize in their paychecks..*



You know, there is something you communists never seem able to explain: Since it is the workers who produce everything, what do they need the entrepreneur for?  I mean, why don't the workers just go make all this wealth on their own and keep it? A machine operator is all that is needed to make a microprocessor - so say the communists, so why don't they go make them on their own and not share their profits with the engineers and scientists who have nothing to do with creating capital?


----------



## Uncensored2008

MarcATL said:


> Post of the thread!



The post is utter and complete stupidity.


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> You question indicates to me that nothing I wrote made much sense to you.



That's because nothing you write makes any sense at all. You recite mindless Marxist platitudes without a hint of a clue as to why they are meaningless babble.



> You'll get it soon enough when this formerly wealthy society collapses.



Is that happening before or after Jesus returns?

Mindless Marxists have predicted the collapse of society and the uprising of the mighty proletariat since the mid-1800's. 



> You see, Sam, contrary to what you apparently believe, the wealthy _are not_ the foundation of wealth in a capitalistic society.



Oh really?

It's the "workers," right?



> Workers are.



BWAHAHAHA

Right on cue..



> And when the system allows its capitalist to migrate that wealth away from the society that originally created it, that society, much like a farm without seed corn, lays fallow.



Say Sparky, why don't these workers just keep the wealth? What do they need the capitalists for?



> ATlas has been systematically moving American made WEALTH offshore.



No sparky, that would be socialism. Labor costs are more than mitigated by shipping costs in virtually every case. I know you've never had a business or accounting class so let me explain. If I pay a worker to make widgets for $10 an hour in the USA and he can make 12 widgets per hour; then I offshore this to India to pay a worker $2 an hour, then my shipping costs must be less than $.66 per widget, or I just lost money on the deal. 

So the reason for offshoring must not be labor costs - can you think of any other reason that these mean industrialists might want to make products outside of the USA?



> That is why millions and millions of otherwise prodductive Americans cannot find work.  Their jobs have migrated with the capital.



But you said the workers make the capital. So why don't they just go dig holes and fill them in? It's work and according to you, work creates capital. Are they just too lazy, or is there some other factor which you don't comprehend?



> WE are just now beginning to see the net result of that foolish policiy.



How many years have you been wearing Che tee-shirts? Hmm, you must not be very effective with your message....



> I am on board with the Founding fathers in this regard.
> 
> They understood, as most apologists for the Randian POV do not, that protecting a nations industrial based demands sane trade policies,



Really? Can you offer a quote or two to support your claim?

(You DO realize that Vlad Lenin and Mao are NOT founding fathers, doncha?)



> That is why for the most part during first nearly 200 years that this society existed, we had protective tariffs to encourage investment into our industrial growth.



ROFL

Is that right..

Say sparky, didn't congress impose a defacto tariff on Southern cotton in 1862 whilst there was no tariff on cotton from France? Is that the kind of " protective tariffs to encourage investment into our industrial growth" you mean?

Also, how did the whole "Smoot-Hawley" thing work out? Did it really boost the U.S. economy?


----------



## Uncensored2008

rightwinger said:


> And who keeps capitalism in check?
> 
> The Evil Gubment



Yeah, we see that...

{Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse. Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.}

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

You communists have all the answers......


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthmatters said:


> This rand movie is going to be a real piece of trash which will reflect the trash that is in the original work.
> 
> It will be a good thing for the political debate.



Stick to the Pokemon movies, Truthiness - they are the extent of your comprehension.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthmatters said:


> My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
> 
> Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged[4]



That does stand as the polar opposite of what you communists preach.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Immanuel said:


> I think it is a shame that many of the people who are bashing Ms. Rand's story don't appear to have actually read it.
> 
> Immie



All very well stated.

In fairness, I've found a lot on the right who bash Marx have never actually read him. (Of course, a lot on the left who promote Marx haven't read him ether.)


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> I don't recall saying she was stupid.



That's because you cut & pasted words which were not your own that you didn't comprehend on a subject that you have no clue about.


----------



## Bern80

konradv said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if this isn't true?
> 
> One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.
> 
> To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.
> 
> If everyone has the equal _opportunity_ to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. *We're talking about the people who won't*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be talking about anyone who doesn't agree with you.  That's the problem with the rhetoric, you're given one example and have to throw in disclaimers.  A fully realized philosophical system wouldn't require that kind of back-tracking.
Click to expand...


It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.


----------



## editec

FWIW I thought the plotline of AS was compelling when I read it, too.

How compelling was it?

Compelling enough for me to have waded through the hundreds of pages of what amounted to almost nothing but political screed.

Gotta hand it to Ayn for that, regardless of what you think of her political POV, she knew how to suck the reader into the plotline well enough to make them read though all the claptrap to discover_ who is John Galt?_


----------



## Immanuel

Uncensored2008 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a shame that many of the people who are bashing Ms. Rand's story don't appear to have actually read it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All very well stated.
> 
> In fairness, I've found a lot on the right who bash Marx have never actually read him. (Of course, a lot on the left who promote Marx haven't read him ether.)
Click to expand...


There is some difference in that though.  

One need not read Marx to have been exposed to Communist theory as it is taught in schools all the time.  On the other hand, one must have read Rand just to have an idea about what she thinks.  Or I suppose, one might travel the internet as TM has done and cut and paste anti-Rand propaganda.  

I have only read 2/3rds of "Atlas" which is a work of fiction.  I can surmise what her political leanings were from those words, but I really don't know much about her.

From what I can tell, she is anti-communistic.  Which would have made her a star in the days of Senator McCarthy and puts her on the level of Satan's second-in-command with most of today's "liberals".  The nerve of anyone not believing that everyone should sacrifice their own happiness for the "good of the people"!  

Funny thing is that Rand explains pretty well what might happen if everyone did sacrifice for the good of the state.  Basically, she predicts that those people with a mind of their own, who risk their capital, their time and their efforts for the betterment of society will cease to take those risks and either disappear entirely or be swallowed up by society stifling progress completely.  

Why, for instance, would the man who will eventually discover the cure for Cancer spend a lifetime of experimentation and utter risk of failure without hope of being rewarded in the future?  One would like to think that that man did so for altruistic reasons, but in reality there would be little likelihood of him ever even undertaking the risks in the first place since there would be no reward for his risks.  The costs alone would be prohibitive.

Ayn Rand lays out what she sees as the downfalls of Marxism.  She does an excellent job of it too.  For this, she is hated by the left most of whom can only come up with ridicules rants against her without having actually read her story.  I'm sure some who believe in the virtues of Marxism might be able to rebut her treatise but it seems that most who attack her in this thread have not even read the book; yet know for a fact that she is evil incarnate.  How do they know this?  Why, the Liberals in today's society have told them that she is.  Who would doubt any of those talking points?

Immie


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying she was stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you cut & pasted words which were not your own that you didn't comprehend on a subject that you have no clue about.
Click to expand...


So what?  When did I say she was stupid?  That's the charge you leveled.  Are you back-tracking too, since you've been called out as a liar?  That seems to always be the case with the Randites.  They haven't really thought out the philosophy, except for the feel-good veneer and we're supposed to believe we're the ones that are stupid?!?!


----------



## konradv

Immanuel said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a shame that many of the people who are bashing Ms. Rand's story don't appear to have actually read it.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All very well stated.
> 
> In fairness, I've found a lot on the right who bash Marx have never actually read him. (Of course, a lot on the left who promote Marx haven't read him ether.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is some difference in that though.
> 
> One need not read Marx to have been exposed to Communist theory as it is taught in schools all the time.  On the other hand, one must have read Rand just to have an idea about what she thinks.  Or I suppose, one might travel the internet as TM has done and cut and paste anti-Rand propaganda.
> 
> I have only read 2/3rds of "Atlas" which is a work of fiction.  I can surmise what her political leanings were from those words, but I really don't know much about her.
> 
> From what I can tell, she is anti-communistic.  Which would have made her a star in the days of Senator McCarthy and puts her on the level of Satan's second-in-command with most of today's "liberals".  The nerve of anyone not believing that everyone should sacrifice their own happiness for the "good of the people"!
> 
> Funny thing is that Rand explains pretty well what might happen if everyone did sacrifice for the good of the state.  Basically, she predicts that those people with a mind of their own, who risk their capital, their time and their efforts for the betterment of society will cease to take those risks and either disappear entirely or be swallowed up by society stifling progress completely.
> 
> Why, for instance, would the man who will eventually discover the cure for Cancer spend a lifetime of experimentation and utter risk of failure without hope of being rewarded in the future?  One would like to think that that man did so for altruistic reasons, but in reality there would be little likelihood of him ever even undertaking the risks in the first place since there would be no reward for his risks.  The costs alone would be prohibitive.
> 
> Ayn Rand lays out what she sees as the downfalls of Marxism.  She does an excellent job of it too.  For this, she is hated by the left most of whom can only come up with ridicules rants against her without having actually read her story.  I'm sure some who believe in the virtues of Marxism might be able to rebut her treatise but it seems that most who attack her in this thread have not even read the book; yet know for a fact that she is evil incarnate.  How do they know this?  Why, the Liberals in today's society have told them that she is.  Who would doubt any of those talking points?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


You don't really seem to get the criticism.  It's not that she was anti-Marxist, but that she was anti-society. * Nobody* does it alone, not even John Galt.


----------



## Big Fitz

> It's not that she was anti-Marxist, but that she was anti-society.


Flat out wrong.  A society of individuals defined the US from it's independence to the civil war.  then that culture started being pushed west, out of the more 'civilized' areas that started getting more and more collectivist.

Society of individuals exist and function quite well.  They just don't have the entitlement mentality and charity is given often and freely from individual and family to each other without a single government employee being involved.

But that requires a certain strength of character and forthrightness of thought that is utterly absent in almost all liberals.



> * Nobody* does it alone, not even John Galt.



Read the book.  You stuck your foot in your mouth again up to your hip.


----------



## Immanuel

konradv said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All very well stated.
> 
> In fairness, I've found a lot on the right who bash Marx have never actually read him. (Of course, a lot on the left who promote Marx haven't read him ether.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is some difference in that though.
> 
> One need not read Marx to have been exposed to Communist theory as it is taught in schools all the time.  On the other hand, one must have read Rand just to have an idea about what she thinks.  Or I suppose, one might travel the internet as TM has done and cut and paste anti-Rand propaganda.
> 
> I have only read 2/3rds of "Atlas" which is a work of fiction.  I can surmise what her political leanings were from those words, but I really don't know much about her.
> 
> From what I can tell, she is anti-communistic.  Which would have made her a star in the days of Senator McCarthy and puts her on the level of Satan's second-in-command with most of today's "liberals".  The nerve of anyone not believing that everyone should sacrifice their own happiness for the "good of the people"!
> 
> Funny thing is that Rand explains pretty well what might happen if everyone did sacrifice for the good of the state.  Basically, she predicts that those people with a mind of their own, who risk their capital, their time and their efforts for the betterment of society will cease to take those risks and either disappear entirely or be swallowed up by society stifling progress completely.
> 
> Why, for instance, would the man who will eventually discover the cure for Cancer spend a lifetime of experimentation and utter risk of failure without hope of being rewarded in the future?  One would like to think that that man did so for altruistic reasons, but in reality there would be little likelihood of him ever even undertaking the risks in the first place since there would be no reward for his risks.  The costs alone would be prohibitive.
> 
> Ayn Rand lays out what she sees as the downfalls of Marxism.  She does an excellent job of it too.  For this, she is hated by the left most of whom can only come up with ridicules rants against her without having actually read her story.  I'm sure some who believe in the virtues of Marxism might be able to rebut her treatise but it seems that most who attack her in this thread have not even read the book; yet know for a fact that she is evil incarnate.  How do they know this?  Why, the Liberals in today's society have told them that she is.  Who would doubt any of those talking points?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't really seem to get the criticism.  It's not that she was anti-Marxist, but that she was anti-society. * Nobody* does it alone, not even John Galt.
Click to expand...


Anti-society?  Really?  Maybe it is you who doesn't get it?  

She wasn't "Anti-society".  She believed that Marxism was the downfall of society and in _Atlas Shrugged_ she seems to have done a fine job of explaining why she believes that.  In fact, she was more Pro-society than a lot of liberals if her viewpoint is correct.  The Marxist Theory in her viewpoint leads to the destruction of society completely.  

Basically she lays out the theory that Marxism turns society into a zombie... the living dead. If she is right then it is her detractors who are, in fact, "Anti-society" and she is the one who is on the side of the people.  It is the Wesley Mouchs and James Taggarts of the world that have killed society, not the John Galts, Dagny Taggarts and Hank Reardons.

Spoiler alert:

In the story, I have just gotten to the part where Dagny has toured "Atlantis".  It seems there is a society that is thriving despite the government's interference in the outside world.  The society of "Atlantis" is alive and well.  It is functioning as a society while life around them collapses.


So if you have read Atlas, who really is "Anti-society":  Rand or the "looters" of today's society?

In other words, when you say, "You don't really seem to get the criticism.  It's not that she was anti-Marxist, but that she was anti-society".  I think your criticism is off base and extremely one-sided.  She is by no means "Anti-society".    

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

The Ayn Rand Institute: Ayn Rand's Q & A on Libertarianism


----------



## konradv

Bern80 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. *We're talking about the people who won't*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be talking about anyone who doesn't agree with you.  That's the problem with the rhetoric, you're given one example and have to throw in disclaimers.  A fully realized philosophical system wouldn't require that kind of back-tracking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.
Click to expand...


It should also go without saying to no one does it alone.  Unfortunately, the Randites seem to think that the entrepeneur did and owes society nothing.  It's willful blindness that puts them in the same class as the Marxists, since both philosophies would require a basic change in human nature to work.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Immanuel said:


> There is some difference in that though.
> 
> One need not read Marx to have been exposed to Communist theory as it is taught in schools all the time.  On the other hand, one must have read Rand just to have an idea about what she thinks.  Or I suppose, one might travel the internet as TM has done and cut and paste anti-Rand propaganda.



Excellent summation of Objectivism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> So what?  When did I say she was stupid?




Here:



> Although David Kelley, Leonard Peikoff, and others now try to develop her thought into a complete philosophical system, nothing can hide the relative shallowness of her knowledge: She despised Immanuel Kant but then actually invokes "treating persons as ends rather than as means only" to explain the nature of morality. Perhaps she had picked that up without realizing it was from Kant [note].



I noted that this is cut&paste that you probably didn't grasp.



> That's the charge you leveled.  Are you back-tracking too, since you've been called out as a liar?  That seems to always be the case with the Randites.



What is a "Randite?" Do you mean "Objectivist?" 

I am not an Objectivist, my views track more closely with Murray Rothbard.



> They haven't really thought out the philosophy, except for the feel-good veneer and we're supposed to believe we're the ones that are stupid?!?!



You have no idea one way or the other. You have zero grasp of what Rand promoted and attack because she is an enemy of the party, not because you have a rational or compelling argument against her philosophy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> It should also go without saying to no one does it alone.  Unfortunately, the Randites seem to think that the entrepeneur did and owes society nothing.



You speak from a position of abject ignorance.

Here is a clue, Rand viewed the situation such that industrialists give society more than any others, that priests and moochers talk a great deal but in fact give nothing to society. Industrialists give use microchips and flat screens and cars and all of the goods we depend on. 

You give us your needs and your wants.

I prefer goods.


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> In the story, I have just gotten to the part where Dagny has toured "Atlantis". It seems there is a society that is thriving despite the government's interference in the outside world. The society of "Atlantis" is alive and well. It is functioning as a society while life around them collapses.



You just described the co-operative commune that the "producers" created.  Oh, the delicious irony!  And it absolutely WAS NOT "government" that crashed the economy... it was your "producers" in the banks, mortgage lenders and on wall street... although, if you think about it, they don't really "produce" anything either.  Government neglected to STOP the collapse caused by the shenanigans going on in the banks.


----------



## Immanuel

Mr. Peepers said:


> In the story, I have just gotten to the part where Dagny has toured "Atlantis". It seems there is a society that is thriving despite the government's interference in the outside world. The society of "Atlantis" is alive and well. It is functioning as a society while life around them collapses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just described the co-operative commune that the "producers" created.  Oh, the delicious irony!  And it absolutely WAS NOT "government" that crashed the economy... it was your "producers" in the banks, mortgage lenders and on wall street... although, if you think about it, they don't really "produce" anything either.  Government neglected to STOP the collapse caused by the shenanigans going on in the banks.
Click to expand...


Really?  Those "producers" have set up their own society where everyone earns their keep, not a "commune".  

In the story, it was the looters who crashed society by inserting themselves into political positions of power.  Banks had nothing to do with it.  None of the "looters" were bankers.  

Maybe you haven't read the book?

Immie


----------



## sparky

Scott McDonanld, of the Ayn Rand institute, verified Ayn recieved both Medicare and SS under the name Ann O'Conner in her later years

seems the bastion of libertopia wasn't above gov handouts , eh?


----------



## Uncensored2008

sparky said:


> Scott McDonanld, of the Ayn Rand institute, verified Ayn recieved both Medicare and SS under the name Ann O'Conner in her later years
> 
> seems the bastion of libertopia wasn't above gov handouts , eh?



Really?

Post a cite....


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Uncensored2008 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott McDonanld, of the Ayn Rand institute, verified Ayn recieved both Medicare and SS under the name Ann O'Conner in her later years
> 
> seems the bastion of libertopia wasn't above gov handouts , eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Post a cite....
Click to expand...


It's in his book. Looks like you can pick it up pretty cheap.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/100-Voices-Oral-History-Rand/dp/0451231309]Amazon.com: 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (9780451231307): Scott McConnell: Books[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

theDoctorisIn said:


> It's in his book. Looks like you can pick it up pretty cheap.
> 
> Amazon.com: 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (9780451231307): Scott McConnell: Books



It's from a completely debunked claim by Evva Joan Pryor, who had been fired by Rand. McConnell is not much of a journalist.

"Atlas Shrugged" has sold more than 80,000 copies PER YEAR since 1957. The portrayal of Rand as destitute is laughably absurd.

Notice how the right never stoops to portraying Karl Marx as a wealthy industrialist at the end of his life?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Uncensored2008 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in his book. Looks like you can pick it up pretty cheap.
> 
> Amazon.com: 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (9780451231307): Scott McConnell: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's from a completely debunked claim by Evva Joan Pryor, who had been fired by Rand. McConnell is not much of a journalist.
> 
> "Atlas Shrugged" has sold more than 80,000 copies PER YEAR since 1957. The portrayal of Rand as destitute is laughably absurd.
> 
> Notice how the right never stoops to portraying Karl Marx as a wealthy industrialist at the end of his life?
Click to expand...


McConnell was Director of Communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. I think he probably knows what he's talking about.

And selling 80,000 books a year is around $35,000 a year. Not exactly a huge income.

And who cares about Karl Marx, except in conservative fairy land? No liberals I know idolize Karl Marx like you guys idolize Rand.


----------



## Bern80

konradv said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be talking about anyone who doesn't agree with you.  That's the problem with the rhetoric, you're given one example and have to throw in disclaimers.  A fully realized philosophical system wouldn't require that kind of back-tracking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should also go without saying to no one does it alone.  Unfortunately, the Randites seem to think that the entrepeneur did and owes society nothing.  It's willful blindness that puts them in the same class as the Marxists, since both philosophies would require a basic change in human nature to work.
Click to expand...


Of course no one does it alone. Hence why people agree to engage in various transactions all the time for mutual benefit. Rand's point is that I don't owe you anything just because you've been sucking air longer than me.


----------



## QUENTIN

Bern80 said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would get a society free of people with an entitlement mentality. *You would get a society where everyone understood that their outcomes are predominantly determined by their own behavior and choices.* Since everyone understands this you would have a remarkably strong society due to very few people residing themselves to being dependent on others for their well being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what if this isn't true?
> 
> One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.
> 
> To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.
> 
> If everyone has the equal _opportunity_ to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.
> 
> ...
> 
> It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.
Click to expand...


Well it's my example, and I wasn't thinking severely mentally or physically handicapped, so let's say they're not. They're just a little slow, IQ of 85-90 type deal. That's fairly normal, within the mean. And they're not in a wheelchair, just have poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, maybe a mild deformity that makes them stand out as particularly unattractive and thus a less desirable employee to deal with the public. Now technically, that person is capable of working hard and making the most of the opportunities available to them, but greater than 95% of the time they're not going to succeed much in the financial department and will likely struggle to even find meaningful work.

If we go to the extreme and make them a multi-handicapped retard it still poses a problem, because in a society where no one is responsible for the well-being of anyone but themselves and programs to take care of the needy are seen as parasitic and unjust, that guy is shit out of luck to even survive.

If we avoid the mental/physical impairment entirely, we can focus on merely their circumstances, which many more people find themselves in. They're born dirt poor to one bad parent in a place where the available education is woefully inadequate and job prospects are all bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of what one can contribute, earn, or get out of their work. An individual born into those circumstances, which are entirely beyond their control, can work their ass off from the time they're 13 and is statistically quite unlikely to ever make much more than minimum wage, be able to buy their own home, be able to afford quality health insurance or plan for a decent retirement.

Meanwhile someone born into the other circumstances I mentioned, to a family of great wealth and social standing, may barely have to lift a finger and is automatically afforded an education at the best schools and colleges in the nation, a high-paying job, and is statistically likely to be wealthy their entire lives, able to afford all the necessities and the finer things and be quite comfortable from cradle to grave.

Like the role nature and nurture play in an individual's personal development, behavior and choices and also circumstances entirely beyond their control both play a significant role in a person's success. It would be wrong to discount the responsibility has for the choices they make, it is just as wrong to discount how much is out of their hands though and how much is gifted to the lucky (particularly those inheriting wealth) that has nothing to do with behavior and choices and can play as great or even greater a role in whether they succeed financially.

The playing field is drastically, dramatically uneven and until opportunities approach some degree of equality, it's not accurate to say everyone's outcomes are predominately determined by their behavior and choices. In a utopia, sure, but not in real life. Many diehard "individualists" and the economically neo-liberal seem to accept as a matter of faith that hard work is rewarded and people end up where they do essentially because they deserve their success or failure. That's just not realistic given the world we live in.


----------



## Bern80

QUENTIN said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if this isn't true?
> 
> One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.
> 
> If you want to help the less fortunate, go ahead and help them. There is no Randian objection to charity. The point is one one should be free to choose to give as opposed to being forced to be charitable. And there is no need to fear that if government doesn't make people, they wouldn't be. The evidence is everywhere that the private sector is far more generous and charitable and helping of people than the government.
> 
> To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.
> 
> If everyone has the equal _opportunity_ to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.
> 
> ...
> 
> It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's my example, and I wasn't thinking severely mentally or physically handicapped, so let's say they're not. They're just a little slow, IQ of 85-90 type deal. That's fairly normal, within the mean. And they're not in a wheelchair, just have poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, maybe a mild deformity that makes them stand out as particularly unattractive and thus a less desirable employee to deal with the public. Now technically, that person is capable of working hard and making the most of the opportunities available to them, but greater than 95% of the time they're not going to succeed much in the financial department and will likely struggle to even find meaningful work.
> 
> If we go to the extreme and make them a multi-handicapped retard it still poses a problem, because in a society where no one is responsible for the well-being of anyone but themselves and programs to take care of the needy are seen as parasitic and unjust, that guy is shit out of luck to even survive.
> 
> If we avoid the mental/physical impairment entirely, we can focus on merely their circumstances, which many more people find themselves in. They're born dirt poor to one bad parent in a place where the available education is woefully inadequate and job prospects are all bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of what one can contribute, earn, or get out of their work. An individual born into those circumstances, which are entirely beyond their control, can work their ass off from the time they're 13 and is statistically quite unlikely to ever make much more than minimum wage, be able to buy their own home, be able to afford quality health insurance or plan for a decent retirement.
> 
> Meanwhile someone born into the other circumstances I mentioned, to a family of great wealth and social standing, may barely have to lift a finger and is automatically afforded an education at the best schools and colleges in the nation, a high-paying job, and is statistically likely to be wealthy their entire lives, able to afford all the necessities and the finer things and be quite comfortable from cradle to grave.
> 
> Like the role nature and nurture play in an individual's personal development, behavior and choices and also circumstances entirely beyond their control both play a significant role in a person's success. It would be wrong to discount the responsibility has for the choices they make, it is just as wrong to discount how much is out of their hands though and how much is gifted to the lucky (particularly those inheriting wealth) that has nothing to do with behavior and choices and can play as great or even greater a role in whether they succeed financially.
> 
> The playing field is drastically, dramatically uneven and until opportunities approach some degree of equality, it's not accurate to say everyone's outcomes are predominately determined by their behavior and choices. In a utopia, sure, but not in real life. Many diehard "individualists" and the economically neo-liberal seem to accept as a matter of faith that hard work is rewarded and people end up where they do essentially because they deserve their success or failure. That's just not realistic given the world we live in.
Click to expand...


Of course the playing field doesn't start even. You don't control where you start, but as long as you have free will, you very much control the end. Will it be harder for some than for others? Of course. But regardless of the difficulty level, I don't owe anyone less fortunate than me anything. Maybe you would consider yourself one of the more fortunate, but it's a matter of degree and I'm sure there are people more fortunate than you and me as well. Would you really walk up to them and proclaim they owe you something? That they have an obligation to you before they fulfill any desires of their own? How can you claim from them what you have not earned from them?


----------



## QUENTIN

Big Fitz said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... Easter friggen weekend and you're writing a sequel to it's obituary that you've already pronounced 2 weeks ago.  What a big movie weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say Easter weekend like it's a bad thing. The box-office take this week was better over this Easter weekend than it was last weekend when the film debuted or either of the last two weeks before that making it the biggest box-office weekend in April. Easter is usually is a stronger weekend than average.
> 
> I mean, you're essentially just continuing to show that you don't know much about what you're talking about when it comes to movie release strategies, box-office performance, distribution, etc. and how the film is performing in context.
> 
> The movie has been out two weeks and made $3 million total, with a big dropoff its second week despite screening in over 50% more theaters. If it had increased its gross and maintained its per screen average in keeping with a wider release, it might have a chance to make back its money. As it is, the film is a bomb that will be a loss for its producers and is seriously unlikely to result in two more sequels unless they're drastically lower-budgeted and go straight-to-DVD, with even that being a gamble.
> 
> I wrote the obit for the film when it was clear it was dead, which it is. Now that it's tried an expansion and done worse, it has demonstrated the movie has no legs and can't continue to expand to reach a broader audience. Apparently the majority who wanted to see it saw it opening weekend and even that was very few people.
> 
> At what point are you willing to admit it has not been a major phenomenon as the OP and many others predicted and that it's at least a financial (beyond critical which can be dismissed if you like) failure? 2 more weeks? 10? A Year? Movies are made or broken by their first couple weeks in release these days and the direction this one went is quite clear from the numbers. Do you seriously expect that somewhere down the near line this film is going to blow up and be a cultural phenomenon and major hit and play a role in unseating the president (or even, at this point, making its financiers their investment back)? If so, your expectations are unrealistic given the indie film market and this film's performance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  So tell me, when a movie costs around 10m to make, and you make 30% of your money back in 2 weeks, is it a flop?
Click to expand...


Yes, a movie making back only 30% of its budget in 2 weeks of release is considered a colossal flop. 

Of movies in the top 10 right now, Rio has made 300+% of its budget back in 2 weeks in release. Tyler Perry's latest Madea movie has made 250% of its budget back in 1 week in release. Water for Elephants made 45% of its money back in 1 week in release (which means it will likely disappoint). Hop made 230% of its budget back in 4 weeks in release. Scream 4 made 75% of its budget back in 2 weeks (and is considered a failure, with plans to continue the franchise now scrapped as a result). Soul Surfer made 155% of its budget back in 3 weeks in release. Hanna made 103% of its budget back in 3 weeks (and is considered a serious disappointment). Insidious, which is an indie movie made for only 1.5 million, has made 2,933% of its budget back in 4 weeks in release and is considered a major success. Source Code has made 190% of its budget back in 4 weeks in release.

Nearly all successful films make their entire budgets back within the first two weeks of release because that is when the overwhelming majority of audiences will see the film and thus when it will make most of its money. Especially for the studios, distributors, and financiers because on opening weekend 75-85% of the box-office gross typically goes to the studios and backers while usually after the second week the profit sharing switches to 65-80% of the gross going to the exhibitors (the theaters). 

Small indie films that opt for a rollout release strategy often follow a different model where they initially play in only a handful to a couple hundred theaters and then, if their success in limited release warrants it, will go wide and make the majority of their money then (in their first two weeks in wide release). Recent indie films with similar budgets to Atlas Shrugged like Black Swan, Little Miss Sunshine, and Juno have followed that path where their tremendous success in a limited number of theaters led to them expanding to 1,000-2,000 theaters and making most of their money then. However, when a film performs poorly even in limited release, that's a sign it will only lose more money if expanded into more theaters so that never happens and the film disappears without making its money back - or in other words is a failure.



> Don't over 75% of all films drop off the second week, even with screen increases?  Got numbers on that?



It's higher than 75% actually. The vast majority of movies drop off the second week...however, not with screen increases. The whole point of a platform release is for a film to prove itself in a small number of theaters so that it's worth the investment of expanding it to more where it can and will most likely reach a broader audience. Movies that play in substantially more theaters in a second or third week of release, the ones that are successes, continue to make more money each time they expand to more theaters. So for indie films that follow this path, no, the majority make more money in more theaters. If they don't, it's a sign that expanding them is pointless and will only end up costing the distributors more, increasing their loss. In 50% more theaters, Atlas lost 50% of its gross/audience, proving itself unfit for a broader audience and demonstrating, based on nearly every precedent there is in the indie film market, that it has already made most of the money it will and capitalized on the majority of people willing to see it and it's all downhill from here.



> How many weeks did Titanic take to make back it's quarter of a billion production costs?  5-7 weeks IIRC,  Then it had a MASSIVELY long run which then made it the highest grossing film of all time.  That record may not still stand, but.. it lasted for more than a few years.



Titanic took 4 weeks to make back its $200 million dollar budget, but it made roughly $50 million dollars a week each of those 4 weeks of release and made 25% more the second week when it expanded to 30% more theaters. That film made more than $30 million dollars every week for its first 9 weeks in release, justifying why it continued to play in theaters and maintained the top spot at the box-office for 15 consecutive weeks, a feat not matched since (although Avatar made more money overall). Titanic is certainly a spectacular outlier, but it conforms to the same general principle at the box-office that all movies do: so long as it continues to make lots of money, it warrants continued exhibition. If a film doesn't make lots of, or barely any, money, then its exhibition is cut short because it's not worth keeping it in theaters anymore. Movies that make less than 3 million dollars in 2 weeks despite an expanded release and with mediocre per-screen-averages are never going to make much more than that.


> My first post on this thread?  I never agreed with the OP's premise.  I just maintain that reports of it's demise have been greatly exaggerated by people like you having heart palpitations and flop sweat over it's desired abject failure.  I think it will have a similar effect on public culture as "Expelled" and other similar size release that faced massive mainstream liberal hatred.  Will it have long lasting effects?  Possibly.  Depends on if it becomes a cult classic.  Is "Rocky Horror" a flop?  How about "The Gods Must Be Crazy"?



Expelled is a better comparison to Atlas Shrugged than Titanic or the like and its performance tells us a lot about Atlas's chances. That film cost only $3.5 million and made $3.9 million its first week in limited release, $2 million the next week, then dropped off about 50% of its audience and screens every subsequent week to finish with 7.5 million total. If you'll notice, it made more than half its total gross the first weekend in release (and more than its total budget), its mild success warranted another week in the same number of theaters, it dropped off half after that and its run and gross was more or less over after that. That's the quite common trajectory of movies that aren't really "successful" and never approach phenomenon status, but perform respectably and provide at least a return on investment. 

Atlas Shrugged by contrast cost $20 million (IMDb, Wikipedia, Box-Office Mojo, and The Hollywood Reporter are all now in agreement on that figure, $10 million was merely the planned  budget and the film went well over during production and post) and made less than 2 million or 10% of its budget its first week in release and despite an increase in theaters less than a million in the following week. It thus has no chance of recouping its budget in theaters or even approaching earning half its budget back (in all likelihood, it will finish around $5 million).

From the 30s to the late 70s, it was normal and expected that a film play for several weeks and make back its money gradually as it played around the country, often moving from one geographical market to another earning new money from new audiences over time. Since the late 70's (largely as a result of Jaws and Star Wars and the blockbuster phenomenon) and especially in the last 15-20 years, films open nationally and only play in theaters for a few weeks and are expected to make back most of their money in their first week or two and tend to drop off dramatically after that as new films enter the market and take over their theater space, with the vast majority having what they earn after 3 weeks be relatively insignificant and constantly dwindling until they're finally yanked from theaters because what they're earning doesn't justify the cost of screening anymore. Indie films playing in limited release at specialty theaters often have longer shelf lives, but again, only if they're making enough to warrant it and have per-screen averages much higher than $1,900 and relatively little total drop off week-to-week or an increase if their theater count increases. Shrugged also suffers from having a much higher budget than most indie limited releases, which tend to cost under $5 million (often substantially less) if they have no stars and not much more than $10 million if they do (even star-studded successes like Crash, Juno, and Little Miss Sunshine were all made for $6-8 million). If it was truly low budget it could likely recoup its cost, but investing $20 million in the picture was a crazy gamble that practically doomed it to failure.

As for becoming a cult film, it's possible given that its small niche audience is rather devoted, but even a movie like Rocky Horror that failed upon initial release and only became a cult movie a year later, made back its small budget within 3 weeks playing in only a few dozen theaters before going on to be the longest-running movie ever. It's also of note that in modern times, no film has become a cult phenomenon approaching anything like Rocky Horror or The Gods Must Be Crazy. It's extremely rare, almost unheard of, for a film that initially fails at the box-office to be re-released in theaters much less then become a success. When a film becomes a cult hit these days, that means it finds an audience on home video/VOD/online. Which brings me to my next point...



> And this hasn't hit DVD release yet where most movies (especially small release films) now make the majority of it's money thanks to the consuming public's habits.  I see maybe 70 movies a year.  Only 1-3 of them in a theater, often second run.  All the rest is on dvd.  I wonder what will happen if they manage to get a global release?  I've no idea if they'll even be able to, but it's a curious thought since it is such an Amerocentric film.



Your continued contention, despite all evidence to the contrary and your personal anecdotes, that films (even smaller releases) make more money on DVD than in theaters is just not true. Expelled being the best example (also financed independently, released by the same niche market distribution company, also lacking stars, targeted to appeal to some faction of the American right) made $7.5 million in theaters and then $1.5 million on DVD. That's pretty successful home video figures for an indie movie, but as you see it's a small fraction of not greater than its box-office. As I said, an indie movie that grosses $100 million at the box-office is lucky to make $15 million on DVD (Black Swan made $106 million at the box-office and $12 million on DVD for example). The most successful DVD of the last few years, Avatar, made a whopping $190 million on DVD, but that's still just a quarter of its domestic box-office and less than 10% its total box-office. Even Finding Nemo, the best-selling DVD ever, made less on home video than it did in theaters. Making more on DVD than in theaters is an exceptionally rare occurrence and far from the norm or what "most movies" do. Clerks, which is considered one of the most successful cult movies of all-time and is among the top indie home video releases in history, among those rare films that made substantially more on home video than in theaters (and which made 141,480% of its budget back in theaters, never playing on more than 100 screens) has made just under $12 million on VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-ray combined over the course of 16 years. 

It would take a literal miracle, it would be entirely alone in its class and absolutely unprecedented, for Atlas Shrugged to make the necessary $10-15 million dollars on DVD to even earn it back its cost much less become a success and provide any return on investment. If it's a truly tremendous success on video, that would mean taking in something like $3-5 million and it's more likely to make less than half that. 

As for worldwide release, there are no plans to release the film theatrically outside of the US. The novel the film is based on is very successful, controversial, and well-known within the US but that success is more or less confined to the US in part due to the "Americocentricity" you mentioned. The distributor, Rocky Mountain Pictures, has little to no experience distributing to foreign markets.



> So rail away on your false premise.



Ultimately what this comes down to is a series of false premises and suppositions on your part (each of them easy to debunk). I understand that, you clearly don't know anything about how the independent film market or distribution works, most people don't and have no reason to. But I'm intimately familiar (it's my field) and have provided ample explanation, examples and proof to demonstrate that continuing to believe this film is anything but a financial failure is purely wishful thinking on the part of those who want it to succeed. I understand that too, there are dozens of independent films released each year that I love and hope reach a broader audience only to be dismayed by their failure. But it is divorced from reality to suggest the movie didn't bomb or to hold out hope it still has a realistic chance at success.


----------



## QUENTIN

Bern80 said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.
> 
> ...
> 
> It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's my example, and I wasn't thinking severely mentally or physically handicapped, so let's say they're not. They're just a little slow, IQ of 85-90 type deal. That's fairly normal, within the mean. And they're not in a wheelchair, just have poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, maybe a mild deformity that makes them stand out as particularly unattractive and thus a less desirable employee to deal with the public. Now technically, that person is capable of working hard and making the most of the opportunities available to them, but greater than 95% of the time they're not going to succeed much in the financial department and will likely struggle to even find meaningful work.
> 
> If we go to the extreme and make them a multi-handicapped retard it still poses a problem, because in a society where no one is responsible for the well-being of anyone but themselves and programs to take care of the needy are seen as parasitic and unjust, that guy is shit out of luck to even survive.
> 
> If we avoid the mental/physical impairment entirely, we can focus on merely their circumstances, which many more people find themselves in. They're born dirt poor to one bad parent in a place where the available education is woefully inadequate and job prospects are all bottom-of-the-barrel in terms of what one can contribute, earn, or get out of their work. An individual born into those circumstances, which are entirely beyond their control, can work their ass off from the time they're 13 and is statistically quite unlikely to ever make much more than minimum wage, be able to buy their own home, be able to afford quality health insurance or plan for a decent retirement.
> 
> Meanwhile someone born into the other circumstances I mentioned, to a family of great wealth and social standing, may barely have to lift a finger and is automatically afforded an education at the best schools and colleges in the nation, a high-paying job, and is statistically likely to be wealthy their entire lives, able to afford all the necessities and the finer things and be quite comfortable from cradle to grave.
> 
> Like the role nature and nurture play in an individual's personal development, behavior and choices and also circumstances entirely beyond their control both play a significant role in a person's success. It would be wrong to discount the responsibility has for the choices they make, it is just as wrong to discount how much is out of their hands though and how much is gifted to the lucky (particularly those inheriting wealth) that has nothing to do with behavior and choices and can play as great or even greater a role in whether they succeed financially.
> 
> The playing field is drastically, dramatically uneven and until opportunities approach some degree of equality, it's not accurate to say everyone's outcomes are predominately determined by their behavior and choices. In a utopia, sure, but not in real life. Many diehard "individualists" and the economically neo-liberal seem to accept as a matter of faith that hard work is rewarded and people end up where they do essentially because they deserve their success or failure. That's just not realistic given the world we live in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the playing field doesn't start even. You don't control where you start, but as long as you have free will, you very much control the end. Will it be harder for some than for others? Of course. But regardless of the difficulty level, I don't owe anyone less fortunate than me anything. Maybe you would consider yourself one of the more fortunate, but it's a matter of degree and I'm sure there are people more fortunate than you and me as well. Would you really walk up to them and proclaim they owe you something? That they have an obligation to you before they fulfill any desires of their own? How can you claim from them what you have not earned from them?
Click to expand...


If one's expression of their free will is limited by limited options beyond their control, particularly the inability to get a good education (generally speaking, the poorer the community, the worse the public schools are and private schools are unaffordable to them) - quality education being the great equalizer of opportunity - then they do not control the end. A kid born poor and failed by the school system and their environment is most likely to fail despite working very hard unless another factor beyond their control - remarkable luck - is on their side. 

I'm not even making the argument that you owe anyone else anything or have an obligation to provide for the less fortunate. All I'm saying is that your ethical justification for why those who succeed succeed and those who fail fail - that it is a result of their behavior and choices and predominately determined by what they have control over - is false.

I would consider myself very fortunate. I was born into a lower-middle class family but had loving, hard-working parents willing to sacrifice, work multiple jobs and incur debt in order to ensure I had the best possible education (a choice they made, but not one I did, something I had no control over). I was also naturally bright, lived in a safe and supportive environment, had substantial encouragement from mentor figures in addition to family and more than a little luck in who I encountered and made connections with. I also worked hard my entire life and can attribute much of my eventual success to my own efforts, but if I'd not been gifted with all the beneficial opportunities entirely beyond my control it's highly unlikely no matter how hard I worked that I'd have been able to achieve anything close to what I have and I recognize that too. 

Life isn't fair and that's basically a fact of life. Some people will be born with every advantage imaginable and others with every disadvantage imaginable. Even those disadvantaged in America are exponentially better off than someone born with AIDS in a refugee camp in Swaziland who has basically no options or control over their lives. Though I'd obviously prefer a world where everyone had equal opportunities and their choices truly were the only or most significant contributing factor to where they wound up, that's not the world we live in. My point (again, not at all about what's owed to anyone or obligations placed on the fortunate or anything of the like) is just that you ignore that obvious and accurate truism about life and create a patently false image of the world and its degree of actual meritocracy when you pretend that possessing "free will" means that one's station in life is only or even predominately a result of what they have control over. 

It's one thing to say those who succeed have no obligation to those who don't, it's entirely another to say those who succeed and those who don't deserve their success of failure and have such control over it.


----------



## ginscpy

I don't recall reading it High School Humanities class   - I  would have used Cliffs Notes (my bread-and-butter) to write an essay on - like I did with Shakespeare and Moby Dick etc.......................


----------



## Bern80

QUENTIN said:


> If one's expression of their free will is limited by limited options beyond their control, particularly the inability to get a good education (generally speaking, the poorer the community, the worse the public schools are and private schools are unaffordable to them) - quality education being the great equalizer of opportunity - then they do not control the end. A kid born poor and failed by the school system and their environment is most likely to fail despite working very hard unless another factor beyond their control - remarkable luck - is on their side.
> 
> I'm not even making the argument that you owe anyone else anything or have an obligation to provide for the less fortunate. All I'm saying is that your ethical justification for why those who succeed succeed and those who fail fail - that it is a result of their behavior and choices and predominately determined by what they have control over - is false.



No it isn't. Because what you are saying, simply said another way, is that it is simply not possible for certain people to achieve certain things. Barring those who truly 'can't', the mentally challenged or severely handicapped, your choices determine your outcomes. Again for some people it will be harder than for others, but part of it is also acknowledging what you do indeed have control over and many people refuse to do that. They take for granted the things they have control over. For example, while you may not be able to control the shitty environment you were born in or the shitty school you attend, you can control how hard you choose to work at that school. Simply being born in a certain environment does not mean a certain job or certain income level is simply walled off to you and impossible to reach. We know that isn't true because we know of all kinds of people that have come from literally nothing and the worst of conditions and achieved quite a bit income wise Marshall Mathers, Carl Crawford, Shania Twain, etc.



QUENTIN said:


> I would consider myself very fortunate. I was born into a lower-middle class family but had loving, hard-working parents willing to sacrifice, work multiple jobs and incur debt in order to ensure I had the best possible education (a choice they made, but not one I did, something I had no control over). I was also naturally bright, lived in a safe and supportive environment, had substantial encouragement from mentor figures in addition to family and more than a little luck in who I encountered and made connections with. I also worked hard my entire life and can attribute much of my eventual success to my own efforts, but if I'd not been gifted with all the beneficial opportunities entirely beyond my control it's highly unlikely no matter how hard I worked that I'd have been able to achieve anything close to what I have and I recognize that too.
> 
> Life isn't fair and that's basically a fact of life. Some people will be born with every advantage imaginable and others with every disadvantage imaginable. Even those disadvantaged in America are exponentially better off than someone born with AIDS in a refugee camp in Swaziland who has basically no options or control over their lives. Though I'd obviously prefer a world where everyone had equal opportunities and their choices truly were the only or most significant contributing factor to where they wound up, that's not the world we live in. My point (again, not at all about what's owed to anyone or obligations placed on the fortunate or anything of the like) is just that you ignore that obvious and accurate truism about life and create a patently false image of the world and its degree of actual meritocracy when you pretend that possessing "free will" means that one's station in life is only or even predominately a result of what they have control over.
> 
> It's one thing to say those who succeed have no obligation to those who don't, it's entirely another to say those who succeed and those who don't deserve their success of failure and have such control over it.



I do and have acknowledged that environment will play a role in how difficult life will be for you. What I don't accept is this notion that the outcome of your life is pre-destined by it because there are is all kinds of evidence to the contrary in the very people you claim should not have been able to achieve that did end up achieving anyway.


----------



## peach174

Seems the mistake they made was not enough copies of the movie and they are correcting it now.
The Hollywood left can't understand? Really?

Atlas Shrugged Movie Leaves Hollywood Scratching Its Head, Because It's Succeeding Without Them | Techdirt

Same thing happened with passion of the Christ.
The left really doesn't want this one to succeed because it changes the socialist mind.


----------



## Big Fitz

Bern80 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should also go without saying to no one does it alone.  Unfortunately, the Randites seem to think that the entrepeneur did and owes society nothing.  It's willful blindness that puts them in the same class as the Marxists, since both philosophies would require a basic change in human nature to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course no one does it alone. Hence why people agree to engage in various transactions all the time for mutual benefit. Rand's point is that I don't owe you anything just because you've been sucking air longer than me.
Click to expand...

Or because you just suck more.


----------



## Big Fitz

> The playing field is drastically, dramatically uneven and until  opportunities approach some degree of equality, it's not accurate to say  everyone's outcomes are predominately determined by their behavior and  choices.


Bullshit.  Everyone does the best they can with what they are given when they are born.  No one picks their parents, economic circumstances, or community.  Like a poker player, you play the cards you're dealt and even a crappy hand, given enough skill and chutzpah can win.

You don't have anyone at the poker table going... okay, who's got nothing?  All right, how many extra cards do you want, and put back the ones you don't.

This delusional need for complete 'fairness' from random chance is beyond the pale stupid.  You want life balance?  Play World of Warcraft and quit life.


----------



## Uncensored2008

QUENTIN said:


> Well it's my example, and I wasn't thinking severely mentally or physically handicapped, so let's say they're not. They're just a little slow, IQ of 85-90 type deal.



So you mean the average democrat?



> That's fairly normal, within the mean. And they're not in a wheelchair, just have poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, maybe a mild deformity that makes them stand out as particularly unattractive and thus a less desirable employee to deal with the public. Now technically, that person is capable of working hard and making the most of the opportunities available to them, but greater than 95% of the time they're not going to succeed much in the financial department and will likely struggle to even find meaningful work.



Why? 

90% of government workers have IQ's that hover around 90.  If one is too low on the scale to work for government, McDonalds is always an option.



> If we go to the extreme and make them a multi-handicapped retard it still poses a problem, because in a society where no one is responsible for the well-being of anyone but themselves and programs to take care of the needy are seen as parasitic and unjust, that guy is shit out of luck to even survive.



Have you read "Atlas Shrugged?" Rand praises the concept of charity, she simply states that it must be voluntary, the decision of the person providing it. Hank Rearden was very charitable in the book.


----------



## QUENTIN

peach174 said:


> Seems the mistake they made was not enough copies of the movie and they are correcting it now.
> The Hollywood left can't understand? Really?
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Movie Leaves Hollywood Scratching Its Head, Because It's Succeeding Without Them | Techdirt
> 
> Same thing happened with passion of the Christ.
> The left really doesn't want this one to succeed because it changes the socialist mind.



No, the same thing didn't happen with The Passion of The Christ. That was also financed and produced independently, but that made $83 million in its opening weekend alone on 3, 043 screens with a per screen average of $27,554. It was a massive cultural phenomenon and immediate, record-setting success. Compared to Shrugged's $1.5 million on 300 screens with a per screen average of $5, 500 then less than a million on 450 screens with a per screen average of merely $1,900 and... well, there is no comparison.


----------



## EriktheRed

Box Office: 'Atlas Shrugged' collapses, even without a NY Times review


----------



## rightwinger

EriktheRed said:


> Box Office: 'Atlas Shrugged' collapses, even without a NY Times review



So I guess Obama is not worried then


----------



## Dante

Who cares?




washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> YouTube - Atlas Shrugged Trailer
> 
> it looks good, no, great.


----------



## boedicca

Whether or not people see the movie is, at this moment in history, irrelevant.

We're LIVING Atlas Shrugged.


----------



## Dante

We're living in the real world while Randian Lunatics are living in a terribly written sophomoric Novel


----------



## Dante

ATLAS SNUBBED
The Unsanctioned Pastiche Parody
No one is asking, "Who is John Galt?" anymore... Because now, they know.

Atlas Snubbed - The Unsanctioned Pastiche Parody


----------



## NYcarbineer

EriktheRed said:


> Box Office: 'Atlas Shrugged' collapses, even without a NY Times review



I wonder if that negatively impacts the OP's commission for humping it all over the internet.


----------



## Dante

NYcarbineer said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Box Office: 'Atlas Shrugged' collapses, even without a NY Times review
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if that negatively impacts the OP's commission for humping it all over the internet.
Click to expand...


----------



## boedicca

A Real Life "Anti Dog Eat Dog" bill"

*The Main Street Fairness Act *

_A bill introduced in Congress yesterday would require Internet retailers to collect sales tax regardless of whether they have a physical presence in a customers state. The Main Street Fairness Act would apply to the states, currently totaling 23, that have simplified their tax laws as members of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.

The bills sponsor, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D, MA), says its intended to help states recover an estimated $18.6 billion in sales tax revenue from online purchases that will go uncollected this year, a figure that he says will reach at least $23 billion in 2012. From 2009 to 2012, this amounts to a loss of approximately $55 billion, he says. In some cases, these revenue losses can comprise up to one-half of a states budget shortfall.

Most of the new tax revenue likely would come not from sales taxes on retail sales but by taxing online business-to-business sales. A 2005 study by the University of Tennessee's Center for Business and Economic Research projected that states would lose $6.84 billion in 2008 by not taxing Internet and catalog retail sales, but that the potential revenue from taxing B2B web sales would be in the range of $21.54 to $33.68 billion...._

Legal/Regulatory - Online sales tax proposed in Congress - Internet Retailer


----------



## Smash_Hits

I am quite pleased that this movie failed  .


----------



## Dante

Smash_Hits said:


> I am quite pleased that this movie failed  .



It failed? Socialism lives? Thank god .. I want medicare.


----------



## Intense

For those Tea Partiers on the edge of their seats, waiting to find out what happens in the next two installments of the Atlas Shrugged movie series -- they may not want to hold their breath. 

John Aglialoro, the producer, distributor, and financier of the first Atlas Shrugged movie, says he's reconsidering his plans, thanks to scathing reviews from movie critics (and TPM). "Critics, you won," he told the Los Angeles Times. "I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2."

Atlas Shrugged: Part One opened April 15 on 299 screens. The Times reports: 

"Atlas Shrugged" was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the box office dropped off 47% in the film's second week in release even as "Atlas Shrugged" expanded to 425 screens.The Tea Party group Freedomworks helped push to get it distributed to those 299 screens, and Aglialoro was hoping to expand to 1000 if the box office returns were strong enough. So far the movie's made $3.1 million -- which is not very strong at all.

"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro, said. "I'll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."

Tea Party's Hopes For Atlas Shrugged Trilogy Foiled By Terrible Reviews | TPMDC


----------



## blu

a terrible movie flopped, shocking


----------



## boedicca

blu said:


> a terrible movie flopped, shocking




Did you see it?


----------



## Intense

Dante said:


> Smash_Hits said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite pleased that this movie failed  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It failed? Socialism lives? Thank god .. I want medicare.
Click to expand...


The key word here is want. It is want, unjustified expectation, that corrupts everything around us Dante. Somebody always pays. The movie was actually done pretty well. Pearls before swine.  It's a shame that the great unwashed could just not be satisfied with not seeing it, but worked so hard to effect others. On to the next witch hunt.


----------



## Dante

Ayn Rand was an idiot -- a very bright one, but an idiot. She had a twisted sense of self and life from being scarred as a child. She never did get the fact that Socialist Russia was not the USA. She's like the rape victim who sees a rapist in every male figure


----------



## Intense

Dante said:


> Ayn Rand was an idiot -- a very bright one, but an idiot. She had a twisted sense of self and life from being scarred as a child. She never did get the fact that Socialist Russia was not the USA. She's like the rape victim who sees a rapist in every male figure





> She never did get the fact that Socialist Russia was not the USA.


Yes she did, and she saw whats coming, where we are headed. That is her whole point Dante, Good one.  Try reading "Anthem", you should be able to read it in a single sitting. Ayn knew exactly what to sound the alarm over, which is exactly why the Powers that be want her shut up.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> It failed? Socialism lives? Thank god .. I want medicare.



But you're fabulously wealthy, like all internet trolls are, right?


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL.  Was there a character named Hickmann in that movie?


----------



## JBeukema

The market has spoken.


----------



## rightwinger

_Despite the objective fact that Ayn Rand is the finest philosopher in history and the greatest novelist ever born, "Atlas Shrugged," the film version of her magnum opus, is not doing very well at the box office. After a very good opening weekend in limited release, "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1" quickly sank upon opening in more theaters.

And so its producer, an exercise equipment company CEO (I mean a DYNAMIC PRIME MOVER) who spent $20 million of his own money to finally put Rand's vision on the big screen, is giving up. The film will not expand to 1,000 screens. The second part of the trilogy will not be produced. (That is the real shame, here: The second part is where hundreds of people die horrifically of asphyxiation. And the best part is that they all totally deserve it for being "looters.") (No one will miss part three, which would've just been a three-hour-long speech.)

_

I blame the Libruls


----------



## editec

If anybody wants to see the SUCCESSFUL VERSION of the world that Ayn Randians would like to live in?


STARSHIP TROOPERS is the film for you.

Rand's final outcome world would be a corporate/government lead society where the LITTLE people knew their place and died on command.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> If anybody wants to see the SUCCESSFUL VERSION of the world that Ayn Randians would like to live in?
> 
> 
> STARSHIP TROOPERS is the film for you.
> 
> Rand's final outcome world would be a corporate/government lead society where the LITTLE people knew their place and died on command.



No ed it wouldn't. Even you are smarter than that. It would simply be a world where everyone understands that no one is obligated to provide for the well being of another.


----------



## Immanuel

editec said:


> If anybody wants to see the SUCCESSFUL VERSION of the world that Ayn Randians would like to live in?
> 
> 
> STARSHIP TROOPERS is the film for you.
> 
> Rand's final outcome world would be a corporate/government lead society where the LITTLE people knew their place and died on command.



And if anyone wanted to see a successful version of the world that her opposition would like to live in... oh wait, there ain't one.   

Who on earth wants to live as nothing more than robots belonging to the politically elite?

Immie


----------



## Big Fitz

Immanuel said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anybody wants to see the SUCCESSFUL VERSION of the world that Ayn Randians would like to live in?
> 
> 
> STARSHIP TROOPERS is the film for you.
> 
> Rand's final outcome world would be a corporate/government lead society where the LITTLE people knew their place and died on command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if anyone wanted to see a successful version of the world that her opposition would like to live in... oh wait, there ain't one.
> 
> Who on earth wants to live as nothing more than robots belonging to the politically elite?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

I hear "Triumph of the Will" was successful.  Leni Reifenstahl was a genius.


----------



## Immanuel

Big Fitz said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anybody wants to see the SUCCESSFUL VERSION of the world that Ayn Randians would like to live in?
> 
> 
> STARSHIP TROOPERS is the film for you.
> 
> Rand's final outcome world would be a corporate/government lead society where the LITTLE people knew their place and died on command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if anyone wanted to see a successful version of the world that her opposition would like to live in... oh wait, there ain't one.
> 
> Who on earth wants to live as nothing more than robots belonging to the politically elite?
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear "Rise to Power" was successful.  Leni Reifenstahl was a genius.
Click to expand...


I don't know the story... was the world of Rise to Power successful?

Here's a quick site for information on her.

Riefenstahl dies at 101; tainted by link to Hitler

Immie


----------



## Big Fitz

Immanuel said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if anyone wanted to see a successful version of the world that her opposition would like to live in... oh wait, there ain't one.
> 
> Who on earth wants to live as nothing more than robots belonging to the politically elite?
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> I hear "Rise to Power" was successful.  Leni Reifenstahl was a genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the story... was the world of Rise to Power successful?
> 
> Here's a quick site for information on her.
> 
> Riefenstahl dies at 101; tainted by link to Hitler
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...

You responded too quickly.  I fixed the title to Triumph of the Will.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Immanuel said:


> And if anyone wanted to see a successful version of the world that her opposition would like to live in... oh wait, there ain't one.



Sure there is;

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) - IMDb

The dream of leftists everywhere.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Intense said:


> For those Tea Partiers on the edge of their seats, waiting to find out what happens in the next two installments of the Atlas Shrugged movie series -- they may not want to hold their breath.
> 
> John Aglialoro, the producer, distributor, and financier of the first Atlas Shrugged movie, says he's reconsidering his plans, thanks to scathing reviews from movie critics (and TPM). "Critics, you won," he told the Los Angeles Times. "I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2."
> 
> Atlas Shrugged: Part One opened April 15 on 299 screens. The Times reports:
> 
> "Atlas Shrugged" was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the box office dropped off 47% in the film's second week in release even as "Atlas Shrugged" expanded to 425 screens.The Tea Party group Freedomworks helped push to get it distributed to those 299 screens, and Aglialoro was hoping to expand to 1000 if the box office returns were strong enough. So far the movie's made $3.1 million -- which is not very strong at all.
> 
> "Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro, said. "I'll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."
> 
> Tea Party's Hopes For Atlas Shrugged Trilogy Foiled By Terrible Reviews | TPMDC



Good.  I'm glad someone else is going to get fucked.  I'm still pissed the AMCTV cancelled 'Rubicon'.


----------



## Immanuel

Uncensored2008 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if anyone wanted to see a successful version of the world that her opposition would like to live in... oh wait, there ain't one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is;
> 
> Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) - IMDb
> 
> The dream of leftists everywhere.
Click to expand...


And you would consider that world... successful?

Immie


----------



## Bones

Ayn Rand was quite a demented soul.  Only a sociopath extols the virtues of selfishness and lambastes altruism.  Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Immanuel said:


> And you would consider that world... successful?
> 
> Immie



It is the successful implementation of the world the left seeks for us all.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bones said:


> Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?



Bullshit.

You've never read Rand. You are just another ignorant leftist attacking that which you don't and can't understand.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Bones said:


> Ayn Rand was quite a demented soul.  Only a sociopath extols the virtues of selfishness and lambastes altruism.  Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?



Conservatives pretend to 'get' Ayn Rand the way some people pretend to 'get' opera.

They think it makes them look smart.


----------



## Bern80

Bones said:


> Ayn Rand was quite a demented soul.  Only a sociopath extols the virtues of selfishness and lambastes altruism.  Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?



How can people like you insist the opposite? That I owe you something for nothing? That you have an inherent right to anything of mine? How can people believe such ridiculous crap?


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand was quite a demented soul.  Only a sociopath extols the virtues of selfishness and lambastes altruism.  Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can people like you insist the opposite? That I owe you something for nothing? That you have an inherent right to anything of mine? How can people believe such ridiculous crap?
Click to expand...


Why does contributing to the society through taxes always come down to "you are robbing what is mine and giving it to those who don't deserve it"??

God Damnit.....They take money from me for roads that I don't use and give it to others FOR FREE

Where is Ayn Rand when we need her?


----------



## editec

Uncensored2008 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if anyone wanted to see a successful version of the world that her opposition would like to live in... oh wait, there ain't one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is;
> 
> Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) - IMDb
> 
> The dream of leftists everywhere.
Click to expand...

 
Funny you should mention 1984



> &#8220;First I spent five years in an unsuitable profession (the Indian Imperial Police, in Burma), and then I underwent poverty and the sense of failure. *This increased my natural hatred of authority and made me for the first time fully aware of the existence of the working classes*, and the job in Burma had given me some understanding* of the nature of imperialism:* but these experiences were not enough to give me an accurate political orientation. Then came Hitler, the Spanish Civil War, etc. By the end of 1935 I had still failed to reach a firm decision.&#8221; ​He goes on to say;
> &#8220;The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. *Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.&#8221;*​


 
source 

Once again we see that a self proclaiming conservative clearly doesn't have  fucking clue what the fuck he is talking about.

​​


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand was quite a demented soul.  Only a sociopath extols the virtues of selfishness and lambastes altruism.  Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can people like you insist the opposite? That I owe you something for nothing? That you have an inherent right to anything of mine? How can people believe such ridiculous crap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does contributing to the society through taxes always come down to "you are robbing what is mine and giving it to those who don't deserve it"??
> 
> God Damnit.....They take money from me for roads that I don't use and give it to others FOR FREE
> 
> Where is Ayn Rand when we need her?
Click to expand...


That isn't what it comes down to. Bones, insisted that Rands philosophy was ridiculous. Well the alternative to a philosophy where one does not have any inherent right to someone elses property is one where one DOES have an inherent right to someone elses property. And I find the later to be a far bigger load of 'jabberwocky' than the former.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You've never read Rand. You are just another ignorant leftist attacking that which you don't and can't understand.
Click to expand...


I agree 100% and have read Rand.  How's that, Sparky?  Your little jibes are beyond worthless, much like Rand's philosophy.

You want the REAL story on Objectivism, check out this site.  It goes beyond the fantasies of the Randites and puts things in perspective.

Critiques Of Libertarianism: Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand).


----------



## Immanuel

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand was quite a demented soul.  Only a sociopath extols the virtues of selfishness and lambastes altruism.  Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can people like you insist the opposite? That I owe you something for nothing? That you have an inherent right to anything of mine? How can people believe such ridiculous crap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does contributing to the society through taxes always come down to "you are robbing what is mine and giving it to those who don't deserve it"??
> 
> God Damnit.....They take money from me for roads that I don't use and give it to others FOR FREE
> 
> Where is Ayn Rand when we need her?
Click to expand...


If you had even bothered to read the first 100 pages of AS, you would know that the plot has nothing to do with taxation.  In the book, the government confiscates the rights of business owners to even own their own businesses.  It is not about providing for society via taxation of anywhere from 1-99%, it is the complete elimination of property rights all together.

Big difference even from the social program fiasco that we have today.

Immie


----------



## Big Fitz

NYcarbineer said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand was quite a demented soul.  Only a sociopath extols the virtues of selfishness and lambastes altruism.  Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives pretend to 'get' Ayn Rand the way some people pretend to 'get' opera.
> 
> They think it makes them look smart.
Click to expand...

Unlike on the left... not everything is spin and lies to cover their political realities.

Orwell said it best.

War is peace. 
Freedom is slavery. 
Ignorance is strength

Nice to see they're living up to this prediction.


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> Once again we see that a self proclaiming conservative clearly doesn't have  fucking clue what the fuck he is talking about.



ROFL

I need say nothing. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Orwell knows what a fool you made of yourself.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> I agree 100% and have read Rand.  How's that, Sparky?



If you make the utterly stupid statements which Bones did, then you too will find retort.

I don't care whether you agree or disagree with Rand. I DO object to those who falsely portray Objectivism based on talking ponts they really don't grasp.




> You want the REAL story on Objectivism, check out this site.



Why don't YOU present your objections, rather than linking to one of the hate sites that substitutes for intellect among you drones?

Here is a small quote from Rand;

{"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor  your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil? }

Where is she wrong, drone?


----------



## Big Fitz

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100% and have read Rand.  How's that, Sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you make the utterly stupid statements which Bones did, then you too will find retort.
> 
> I don't care whether you agree or disagree with Rand. I DO object to those who falsely portray Objectivism based on talking ponts they really don't grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the REAL story on Objectivism, check out this site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU present your objections, rather than linking to one of the hate sites that substitutes for intellect among you drones?
> 
> Here is a small quote from Rand;
> 
> {"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor  your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil? }
> 
> Where is she wrong, drone?
Click to expand...

Hell, it'd be nice to see him present an original thought instead of parroting someone elses.

If wishes were horses....  Beggers would sleep in horsepoop.


----------



## Bern80

Big Fitz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100% and have read Rand.  How's that, Sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you make the utterly stupid statements which Bones did, then you too will find retort.
> 
> I don't care whether you agree or disagree with Rand. I DO object to those who falsely portray Objectivism based on talking ponts they really don't grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the REAL story on Objectivism, check out this site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't YOU present your objections, rather than linking to one of the hate sites that substitutes for intellect among you drones?
> 
> Here is a small quote from Rand;
> 
> {"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor  your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil? }
> 
> Where is she wrong, drone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, it'd be nice to see him present an original thought instead of parroting someone elses.
> 
> If wishes were horses....  Beggers would sleep in horsepoop.
Click to expand...


You have to laugh that we've been here for 74 pages now and not a one of the bashers can muster an objective, rationale argument against her philosophy. I was actually discussing it with a good friend who is as liberal as liberal gets and asked him the same thing. He admitted that well he'd never actually read the book and his objection was based on what other people had said about her. He said, and I quote "I can't say specifically. I just don't like her." And that is essentially what we are getting here.


----------



## Intense

Well, I saw Atlas Shrugged for the second time, this afternoon. It is still only playing at one Theater in Queens County. Knowing exactly what to expect this time around, I actually caught more, and enjoyed it better than the first time I saw it on Opening day. The Cast did do a remarkable job of keeping true to form, and I thank them for it. You did make it about the Characters, not Yourselves or Self-Aggrandizement. Every one of you played your parts well. That is refreshing to see. I really hope the other two parts of the Trilogy come through. Something like this needs to be done right, or not attempted at all. You are off to a Great Start. Fuck the Numbers, The Novel Itself was not about Numbers, nor should the Numbers obstruct a project like this. It is not the detractors that lose when you give up, but those that are your supporters. You started this project out of Principle, Why abandon Principle now?


----------



## QUENTIN

Again, the box-office results are in and again, Atlas Shrugged took a nosedive.  The box office collapse continued in the third week of release. Instead of the 1000 screens the producers promised, the film ended April playing on 371 screens, with total sales on the third Friday down 58% from the previous Friday, marking the second consecutive week in which Friday ticket sales dropped more than 50% week over week. 

The film dropped over 50% of its total weekend audience for the second time in a row as well to finish with less than half a million dollars ($403,000) and a drop in its per screen average to a pitiful thousand dollars a pop ($1,086).

After three weeks, the film has made back just $3.8 million of its $20 million dollar budget and plans to release it wider have been canceled due to its poor performance on even a limited number of screens. With the film set to recoup less than 25% of its budget, it's already one of the biggest flops of the year.

So, are the people who predicted a colossal success finally able to admit the film is dead and they were dead wrong, will you cling to the idea that I'm pronouncing it dead long before it's had a chance, or will you simply continue to avoid and ignore the thread like embarrassed cowards because things didn't go your way?


----------



## rightwinger

QUENTIN said:


> Again, the box-office results are in and again, Atlas Shrugged took a nosedive.  The box office collapse continued in the third week of release. Instead of the 1000 screens the producers promised, the film ended April playing on 371 screens, with total sales on the third Friday down 58% from the previous Friday, marking the second consecutive week in which Friday ticket sales dropped more than 50% week over week.
> 
> The film dropped over 50% of its total weekend audience for the second time in a row as well to finish with less than half a million dollars ($403,000) and a drop in its per screen average to a pitiful thousand dollars a pop ($1,086).
> 
> After three weeks, the film has made back just $3.8 million of its $20 million dollar budget and plans to release it wider have been canceled due to its poor performance on even a limited number of screens. With the film set to recoup less than 25% of its budget, it's already one of the biggest flops of the year.
> 
> So, are the people who predicted a colossal success finally able to admit the film is dead and they were dead wrong, will you cling to the idea that I'm pronouncing it dead long before it's had a chance, or will you simply continue to avoid and ignore the thread like embarrassed cowards because things didn't go your way?



I blame the Liberal Lamestream Media


----------



## Immanuel

Okay, I finally finished reading it.  

Y'all can go ahead and post any spoilers you want now.  

Long book but worth the read.  I'm not sure how good of a movie it is going to make, but I enjoyed the book.

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters

Boy I hope the right plans on filming every Rand book.

its a good right wing fund drainer


----------



## Big Fitz

QUENTIN said:


> Again, the box-office results are in and again, Atlas Shrugged took a nosedive.  The box office collapse continued in the third week of release. Instead of the 1000 screens the producers promised, the film ended April playing on 371 screens, with total sales on the third Friday down 58% from the previous Friday, marking the second consecutive week in which Friday ticket sales dropped more than 50% week over week.
> 
> The film dropped over 50% of its total weekend audience for the second time in a row as well to finish with less than half a million dollars ($403,000) and a drop in its per screen average to a pitiful thousand dollars a pop ($1,086).
> 
> After three weeks, the film has made back just $3.8 million of its $20 million dollar budget and plans to release it wider have been canceled due to its poor performance on even a limited number of screens. With the film set to recoup less than 25% of its budget, it's already one of the biggest flops of the year.
> 
> So, are the people who predicted a colossal success finally able to admit the film is dead and they were dead wrong, will you cling to the idea that I'm pronouncing it dead long before it's had a chance, or will you simply continue to avoid and ignore the thread like embarrassed cowards because things didn't go your way?


Well you can sleep soundly now.  you're prediction of this films lack of commercial success seems to have come to pass.

Clutch your stuffed Che all the tighter and have pleasant dreams.


----------



## konradv

Lest we forget due the events of the past week, "Atlas Shrugged" failed because it was a terrible story, poorly written, in defense of an ideology only supported by the chronically immature.


----------



## Big Fitz

konradv said:


> Lest we forget due the events of the past week, "Atlas Shrugged" failed because it was a terrible story, poorly written, in defense of an ideology only supported by the chronically immature.


Couldn't get past "Who is John Galt?" could you?


----------



## Bern80

konradv said:


> Lest we forget due the events of the past week, "Atlas Shrugged" failed because it was a terrible story, poorly written, in defense of an ideology only supported by the chronically immature.



I will say this. You haters with your shear idiocy and lack of anything reflecting a constructive argument and what it reduces you to is definatley more entertaininig than the movie. Immaturity? Look no further than what you just wrote.


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget due the events of the past week, "Atlas Shrugged" failed because it was a terrible story, poorly written, in defense of an ideology only supported by the chronically immature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will say this. You haters with your shear idiocy and lack of anything reflecting a constructive argument and what it reduces you to *is definatley more entertaininig than the movie.* Immaturity? Look no further than what you just wrote.
Click to expand...


More entertaining than the movie?

Thanks for tipping us off. No wonder it flopped


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget due the events of the past week, "Atlas Shrugged" failed because it was a terrible story, poorly written, in defense of an ideology only supported by the chronically immature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will say this. You haters with your shear idiocy and lack of anything reflecting a constructive argument and what it reduces you to *is definatley more entertaininig than the movie.* Immaturity? Look no further than what you just wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More entertaining than the movie?
> 
> Thanks for tipping us off. No wonder it flopped
Click to expand...


If you take being so stupid you're funny as a compliment, I guess I won't argue with you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Big Fitz said:


> Couldn't get past "Who is John Galt?" could you?



Konrad couldn't get past "I am Sam. Sam I am."


----------



## Smash_Hits

Uncensored2008 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't get past "Who is John Galt?" could you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Konrad couldn't get past "I am Sam. Sam I am."
Click to expand...


And Uncensored can barely read books that don't pander to his idiotic world-view.


All of Rand's work (with the possible exception of Anthem; that book could be considered good under some circumstances.) is shit, both from a philosophical and from a literary standpoint (and this is coming from someone who has read a fair amount of her books, as well as a fair amount about her philosophy). Her characters are essentially cardboard cutouts of what every immature conservative wants to be, her books advocate rape and domestic terrorism, and her philosophy is poorly conceived and effectively faith-based (not religious faith). The woman also worshipped sociopaths (including a serial killer who butchered a 12 year old girl), she demanded extreme devotion from her followers (while still "advocating individualism), controlling everything they read and listened to, and she was a racist.


But Anthem is still a pretty good book.


----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget due the events of the past week, "Atlas Shrugged" failed because it was a terrible story, poorly written, in defense of an ideology only supported by the chronically immature.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't get past "Who is John Galt?" could you?
Click to expand...


Just barely.  Started it when in college but never finished it.  Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why.  It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over.  All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.


----------



## Big Fitz

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget due the events of the past week, "Atlas Shrugged" failed because it was a terrible story, poorly written, in defense of an ideology only supported by the chronically immature.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't get past "Who is John Galt?" could you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just barely.  Started it when in college but never finished it.  Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why.  It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over.  All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.  Now if you were only able to GET my point.


----------



## Bern80

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget due the events of the past week, "Atlas Shrugged" failed because it was a terrible story, poorly written, in defense of an ideology only supported by the chronically immature.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't get past "Who is John Galt?" could you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just barely.  Started it when in college but never finished it.  Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why.  It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over.  All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.
Click to expand...


Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Smash_Hits said:


> All of Rand's work (with the possible exception of Anthem; that book could be considered good under some circumstances.) is shit, both from a philosophical and from a literary standpoint



Considered by whom? Uneducated and unthinking cretins such as you?

Another partisan blowhard spouts off about what he cannot grasp and therefore hates.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> Just barely.  Started it when in college but never finished it.



So just like college itself, huh?


----------



## editec

Bern80 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't get past "Who is John Galt?" could you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just barely. Started it when in college but never finished it. Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why. It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over. All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? *Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong.* What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?
Click to expand...

 

In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.

In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.

Our objections aren't that the characters in the book _are bad._

Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.

Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.

Such is the nature of FICTION.


----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't get past "Who is John Galt?" could you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just barely.  Started it when in college but never finished it.  Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why.  It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over.  All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  Now if you were only able to GET my point.
Click to expand...


Since your points are pointless, who cares?  Seems that you're the one that doesn't GET IT.  The book was boring, sets up a scenario that has very little to do with and reality, but pretends to be a look into the future.  You can't make that kind of leap when you're basing your thesis on caricatures than have very little relationship to the way people actually act and think.  If THAT'S your point, bravo.  If not, then I can only go back to may opinion on the chronic immaturity of the Randists.


----------



## konradv

Bern80 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't get past "Who is John Galt?" could you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just barely.  Started it when in college but never finished it.  Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why.  It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over.  All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?
Click to expand...


Fine, if you're only talking about the self-contained world of the book.  If you're trying to make a statement about the real world, however, you'd have to do better than basing it on caricatures.


----------



## Smash_Hits

Uncensored2008 said:


> Smash_Hits said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of Rand's work (with the possible exception of Anthem; that book could be considered good under some circumstances.) is shit, both from a philosophical and from a literary standpoint
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considered by whom? Uneducated and unthinking cretins such as you?
> 
> Another partisan blowhard spouts off about what he cannot grasp and therefore hates.
Click to expand...


Considered by, you know, INTELLIGENT people? Anthem is an intelligent book about the tendency of society to turn people into demographics and numbers.

I don't know why you'd call me uneducated; I wasn't aware you had access to the history of my education. I also realize that you failed to address the majority of my post. You can't really even seem to produce any argument for the philosophy, so maybe it is YOU who can not grasp the subject matter. I understand the the philosophy and intelligently disagree with it, while you just spew shit about how liberals can't understand it. Rather ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Smash_Hits said:


> Considered by, you know, INTELLIGENT people?



What would a dolt such as yourself know of "intelligent people?" 



> Anthem is an intelligent book about the tendency of society to turn people into demographics and numbers.



How nice.

"Atlas Shrugged" is an intelligent book about the consequence of predation on the productive in a strike by self-same.

"We, the Living" is an intelligent book about life in Lenin's USSR including the mass starvation on 1923 and the adoption of the NEP when real communism utterly failed.



> I don't know why you'd call me uneducated; I wasn't aware you had access to the history of my education.



Those who label political ideas they don't agree with as "stupid" are typically uneducated and pontificating from a position of ignorance.

If you oppose the ideas of Rand, fine; elucidate the flaws in her logic. Blanket condemnation as "stupid" merely reveals you as an unthinking partisan, blindly attacking the opposition.



> You can't really even seem to produce any argument for the philosophy,



I have no need to do so.

If you have valid criticism, then offer it. The onus is upon you to support your argument, not upon me to disprove it.



> I understand the the philosophy and intelligently disagree with it,



You offered nothing approaching intelligence in your post. Perhaps you would care to try again?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Smash, I threw this up to another drone, who went and hid;

You can take a crack at it...

Here is a small quote from Rand;

{"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor &#8211; your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil? }

Where is she wrong, drone?


----------



## Bern80

konradv said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just barely.  Started it when in college but never finished it.  Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why.  It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over.  All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, if you're only talking about the self-contained world of the book.  If you're trying to make a statement about the real world, however, you'd have to do better than basing it on caricatures.
Click to expand...


That was a predictable response. Who ever said the book was based on anything going on in the real world? I ask again, what is WRONG with the heroes of the book? Or is it that you think their opposition is misrepresented?


----------



## Smash_Hits

The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept. Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.

Taxes are a required part of society; without them, we wouldn't have roads, schools, postal service, or any other government services. To claim that these would be taken up by the private sector is idiotic. Private roads, for example. The roads would have (a) be heavily taxed (people need to make a living, and are also dicks) and (b) the areas to which no one wants to travel (e.g. poor areas) would not receive enough traffic to be worth roads. This will happen with everything listed above, not just roads. Of course, you will have some magnanimous individuals, but the majority will not (Roark, Taggert, Galt, to name a few).


The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly. The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working; the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing). The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.


My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational." The idea that objectivists see their ideas as absolute truths is philosophically ignorant; there are no truths in the world (if you are interested, read about the Munchhausen Trilemna; it is a logic problem which states that "truth" is nonexistent, because every individual truth relies on another truth to be considered true). Someone as supposedly rational and intelligent as Rand should have been able to figure this out.



Is this simple enough for you, nimrod?

(Be aware that these are just my objections to Objectivism in a nutshell)


----------



## washamericom

Smash_Hits said:


> The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept. Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.
> 
> Taxes are a required part of society; without them, we wouldn't have roads, schools, postal service, or any other government services. To claim that these would be taken up by the private sector is idiotic. Private roads, for example. The roads would have (a) be heavily taxed (people need to make a living, and are also dicks) and (b) the areas to which no one wants to travel (e.g. poor areas) would not receive enough traffic to be worth roads. This will happen with everything listed above, not just roads. Of course, you will have some magnanimous individuals, but the majority will not (Roark, Taggert, Galt, to name a few).
> 
> 
> The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly. The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working; the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing). The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.
> 
> 
> My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational." The idea that objectivists see their ideas as absolute truths is philosophically ignorant; there are no truths in the world (if you are interested, read about the Munchhausen Trilemna; it is a logic problem which states that "truth" is nonexistent, because every individual truth relies on another truth to be considered true). Someone as supposedly rational and intelligent as Rand should have been able to figure this out.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this simple enough for you, nimrod?
> 
> (Be aware that these are just my objections to Objectivism in a nutshell)



this is why obama's neosociaistic earthfueled idealism caught fire, then failed.


----------



## rightwinger

washamericom said:


> Smash_Hits said:
> 
> 
> 
> The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept. Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.
> 
> Taxes are a required part of society; without them, we wouldn't have roads, schools, postal service, or any other government services. To claim that these would be taken up by the private sector is idiotic. Private roads, for example. The roads would have (a) be heavily taxed (people need to make a living, and are also dicks) and (b) the areas to which no one wants to travel (e.g. poor areas) would not receive enough traffic to be worth roads. This will happen with everything listed above, not just roads. Of course, you will have some magnanimous individuals, but the majority will not (Roark, Taggert, Galt, to name a few).
> 
> 
> The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly. The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working; the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing). The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.
> 
> 
> My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational." The idea that objectivists see their ideas as absolute truths is philosophically ignorant; there are no truths in the world (if you are interested, read about the Munchhausen Trilemna; it is a logic problem which states that "truth" is nonexistent, because every individual truth relies on another truth to be considered true). Someone as supposedly rational and intelligent as Rand should have been able to figure this out.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this simple enough for you, nimrod?
> 
> (Be aware that these are just my objections to Objectivism in a nutshell)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is why obama's neosociaistic earthfueled idealism caught fire, then failed.
Click to expand...


Washie.... 

You still here?

I thought you sulked away when this thread failed?


----------



## Bern80

Smash_Hits said:


> The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept. Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.



That isn't what objectivism says. In a free market it is the consumer who is supposed to regulate businesses.






Smash_Hits said:


> The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly. The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working; the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing). The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.



It is not a lie. I just isn't and never was what you libs want to be. The american dream, unlike what you libs believe, is not something that will just happen to you. You do have to work at it. The american dream simply says there is no limit to your potential. It does not and never has garunteed anyone a certain outcome. The above is nothing more than the most convenient excuse EVER for poor people to not hold themselves accountable for their outcomes. You are just plain factually wrong here. The source of the wealth generated from generation to generation is not the result of cash transfers from generation to generation.




Smash_Hits said:


> My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational." The idea that objectivists see their ideas as absolute truths is philosophically ignorant; there are no truths in the world (if you are interested, read about the Munchhausen Trilemna; it is a logic problem which states that "truth" is nonexistent, because every individual truth relies on another truth to be considered true). Someone as supposedly rational and intelligent as Rand should have been able to figure this out.



Unfortunately that is a bit of paradox, it isn't possible for one to say there is no such thing as absolute truth because such a statement is a statement of absolute truth itself. 

But humor me. How would you invalidate Rand's perceived truth that you are not entitled to take anything of mine that I have not agreed to give you?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Smash_Hits said:


> The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept.



Really?

Say, have you ever noticed a symbol on electrical appliances that has UL in a circle?  Have you ever heard of ISO-9001? AS9100? Have you ever hear of the IEEE? 

Would you care to examine the safety and overall effectiveness of a private organization such as Underwriters Laboratories versus a government bureaucracy like the FDA? 



> Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.



Ah yes, the divine right of Kings - the ultimate argument of every mindless socialist. 

Saying that a people can govern themselves is to deny that God has imbued our rulers with special wisdom..

Ultimately your argument is that people must be ruled by their betters.



> Taxes are a required part of society; without them, we wouldn't have roads, schools, postal service, or any other government services.



Show me where Rand demands that all taxes be abolished?

Your straw man reveals the depth of your ignorance on the subject.



> To claim that these would be taken up by the private sector is idiotic. Private roads, for example. The roads would have (a) be heavily taxed (people need to make a living, and are also dicks)



Toll Roads, Sparky. Pay when you use them. Do you believe airlines should be owned and run by the government? Why or why not? 

Again, show me where Rand advocated the privatization of city and county roads? Ayn Rand wasn't Murray Rothbard - they didn't particularly like each other. 




> The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly.



Right, Bill Gates was born a billionaire as was Steve Jobs... Oh, wait...

LOL, fucking socialists...



> The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working;



Yeah, 1776 to present, just two generations... Fascists are so smart....



> the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing).



Look, I realize that you didn't quite make it through high school, but the fact is that the lowest socio-economic elements in America have more creature comforts, cars, air conditioning, TV's - Cable, computers than the average person in most of the world.



> The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.



That's why Americans are streaming over the border into Mexico....



> My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational."



I can understand that, you are utterly irrational. 

Most socialists are.




> Is this simple enough for you, nimrod?



You're a simpleton, no question about that.



> (Be aware that these are just my objections to Objectivism in a nutshell)



Objects revealing not just your ignorance of Objectivism but your general ignorance.


----------



## konradv

Bern80 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, if you're only talking about the self-contained world of the book.  If you're trying to make a statement about the real world, however, you'd have to do better than basing it on caricatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a predictable response. Who ever said the book was based on anything going on in the real world? I ask again, what is WRONG with the heroes of the book? Or is it that you think their opposition is misrepresented?
Click to expand...


If you're trying to present a philosophy which is applicable to the real world, but present it in a book in which isn't based on anything in the real world, why should anyone pay attention?  Remember, the title of the thread says the move will "change the face of American politics".  How can that happen, if it's not based on anything real?   Another contradiction in Objectivism, IMO, we're supposed to believe we can make a real change in the world based on something unreal!!!


----------



## Bern80

konradv said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, if you're only talking about the self-contained world of the book.  If you're trying to make a statement about the real world, however, you'd have to do better than basing it on caricatures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a predictable response. Who ever said the book was based on anything going on in the real world? I ask again, what is WRONG with the heroes of the book? Or is it that you think their opposition is misrepresented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're trying to present a philosophy which is applicable to the real world, but present it in a book in which isn't based on anything in the real world, why should anyone pay attention?  Remember, the title of the thread says the move will "change the face of American politics".  How can that happen, if it's not based on anything real?   Another contradiction in Objectivism, IMO, we're supposed to believe we can make a real change in the world based on something unreal!!!
Click to expand...


What is unreal about it? What did the characters DO in the book that is impossible to do in the real world?(space age metals not withstanding). What about your life would be negative if you for example became an objectivist?


----------



## Big Fitz

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just barely. Started it when in college but never finished it. Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why. It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over. All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? *Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong.* What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.
> 
> In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.
> 
> Our objections aren't that the characters in the book _are bad._
> 
> Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.
> 
> Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.
> 
> Such is the nature of FICTION.
Click to expand...

Is this what passes for critical thinking in your world?

Really??


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just barely. Started it when in college but never finished it. Picked it up 30+ years later to find out why. It's a terribly written book, with caricatures instead of characters, repeating the same mantras over and over. All in all a really terrible book, not to mention a political screed full of more holes than swiss cheese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? *Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong.* What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.
> 
> In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.
> 
> Our objections aren't that the characters in the book _are bad._
> 
> Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.
> 
> Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.
> 
> Such is the nature of FICTION.
Click to expand...


And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things _should_ be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.


----------



## Smash_Hits

Uncensored2008 said:


> Really?
> 
> Say, have you ever noticed a symbol on electrical appliances that has UL in a circle?  Have you ever heard of ISO-9001? AS9100? Have you ever hear of the IEEE?
> 
> Would you care to examine the safety and overall effectiveness of a private organization such as Underwriters Laboratories versus a government bureaucracy like the FDA?



While there are several organizations that apply regulations to businesses in the private sector, which is a good thing, they can't accomplish everything. They can't actually FORCE a business to do something. They also can't cover everything; in the end, you'll need some government regulations. 

I was also speaking more of ethics regulations; I should have made myself clearer. Sorry about that.


> Ah yes, the divine right of Kings - the ultimate argument of every mindless socialist.
> 
> Saying that a people can govern themselves is to deny that God has imbued our rulers with special wisdom..
> 
> Ultimately your argument is that people must be ruled by their betters.




Sounds pretty good to me. There will always be people better suited to lead than others. In a perfect society, there would be no need for rulers. Unfortunately; this isn't the case. We need to be led by somebody, and that person should be as moral and ethical as possible.



> Show me where Rand demands that all taxes be abolished?
> 
> Your straw man reveals the depth of your ignorance on the subject.



Ayn Rand on Taxation

Sounds pretty anti-tax to me.




> Right, Bill Gates was born a billionaire as was Steve Jobs... Oh, wait...
> 
> LOL, fucking socialists...



So because TWO people have been able to rise up through the system proves that it works? How about no... think of the millions that CAN'T. I'm not talking about people rising from the middle class to the top, I'm talking about the people that are born into poverty.



> Yeah, 1776 to present, just two generations... Fascists are so smart....



Capitalism has stopped working, or at least, it has STARTED to stop working. There are numerous articles on this on the web. 

Did you know that in 2007 the top 1% of America owned ~43% of all the wealth... that sounds totally fair, right? (This essay is pretty good if you need more info:  Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power



> Look, I realize that you didn't quite make it through high school, but the fact is that the lowest socio-economic elements in America have more creature comforts, cars, air conditioning, TV's - Cable, computers than the average person in most of the world.



Uhhh, so? The fact of the matter is that they are still heavily disadvantaged, with very little opportunity to make their situation better.



> That's why Americans are streaming over the border into Mexico....



See my above response.



> I can understand that, you are utterly irrational.
> 
> Most socialists are.



When did I say I was a socialist? All I am is someone who isn't an adult with the maturity level of a toddler.


----------



## washamericom

rightwinger said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smash_Hits said:
> 
> 
> 
> The political side of objectivism is a ridiculous concept; the idea that businesses will regulate themselves is an idealistic concept. Saying that there should be no restrictions on businesses is like saying there should be no laws.
> 
> Taxes are a required part of society; without them, we wouldn't have roads, schools, postal service, or any other government services. To claim that these would be taken up by the private sector is idiotic. Private roads, for example. The roads would have (a) be heavily taxed (people need to make a living, and are also dicks) and (b) the areas to which no one wants to travel (e.g. poor areas) would not receive enough traffic to be worth roads. This will happen with everything listed above, not just roads. Of course, you will have some magnanimous individuals, but the majority will not (Roark, Taggert, Galt, to name a few).
> 
> 
> The idea that poor people can rise up the class system is silly. The only way we could get a true value of people's business worth would be to start the economy over. The reason for this is that, while capitalism does work for one or two generations, it gradually stops working; the rich get richer (due to the fact that their parents have money to give to them), and the poor get poorer (because their parents have nothing). The "American Dream" is a lie, as it has been for a while.
> 
> 
> My final gripe with objectivism is the concept of transcending emotion and being "completely rational." The idea that objectivists see their ideas as absolute truths is philosophically ignorant; there are no truths in the world (if you are interested, read about the Munchhausen Trilemna; it is a logic problem which states that "truth" is nonexistent, because every individual truth relies on another truth to be considered true). Someone as supposedly rational and intelligent as Rand should have been able to figure this out.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this simple enough for you, nimrod?
> 
> (Be aware that these are just my objections to Objectivism in a nutshell)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is why obama's neosociaistic earthfueled idealism caught fire, then failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Washie....
> 
> You still here?
> 
> I thought you sulked away when this thread failed?
Click to expand...


10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.


----------



## rightwinger

washamericom said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is why obama's neosociaistic earthfueled idealism caught fire, then failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washie....
> 
> You still here?
> 
> I thought you sulked away when this thread failed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.
Click to expand...


Fake second birth certificate?  Get with the times bro...

We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?

I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy


----------



## editec

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? *Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong.* What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.
> 
> In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.
> 
> Our objections aren't that the characters in the book _are bad._
> 
> Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.
> 
> Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.
> 
> Such is the nature of FICTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things _should_ be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.
Click to expand...

 
I responded to the question "What are her heros doing wrong"

I added why I thought that people who see her book as a model (Like GREENSPAN did for example) for how the world _ought to be_ are either idiots or liars.


----------



## konradv

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? *Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong.* What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.
> 
> In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.
> 
> Our objections aren't that the characters in the book _are bad._
> 
> Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.
> 
> Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.
> 
> Such is the nature of FICTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things _should_ be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.
Click to expand...


If those things were really happening, then opposition to it would be well placed.  We're supposed to believe that the movie will "change" America according to the OP.  Why would we go in that direction over a fictional account that doesn't apply to our situation?  You seem to want it both ways, a plan for the future when it points out some things that are true, but fiction when it describes things that aren't.  Which is it?!?!


----------



## sitarro

rightwinger said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Washie....
> 
> You still here?
> 
> I thought you sulked away when this thread failed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fake second birth certificate?  Get with the times bro...
> 
> We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?
> 
> I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy
Click to expand...


If you believe that the ridiculously bad work that Obama flashed as real, you are the perfect useful idiot that populates the democrat party in such large numbers. I bet you would have a hard time with chads too.


----------



## konradv

sitarro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fake second birth certificate?  Get with the times bro...
> 
> We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?
> 
> I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that the ridiculously bad work that Obama flashed as real, you are the perfect useful idiot that populates the democrat party in such large numbers. I bet you would have a hard time with chads too.
Click to expand...


Still don't think it's real?  Well, TOUGH SHIT that's all you're getting.  This birther nonsense is just a waste of our time.


----------



## Smash_Hits

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? *Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong.* What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.
> 
> In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.
> 
> Our objections aren't that the characters in the book _are bad._
> 
> Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.
> 
> Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.
> 
> Such is the nature of FICTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things _should_ be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.
Click to expand...


You conservatives have no idea how fiction works. Seriously, read a fucking book.


----------



## rightwinger

sitarro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fake second birth certificate?  Get with the times bro...
> 
> We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?
> 
> I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that the ridiculously bad work that Obama flashed as real, you are the perfect useful idiot that populates the democrat party in such large numbers. I bet you would have a hard time with chads too.
Click to expand...


Winner, winner Chicken Dinner

We have another birther.....get with the times, we need to attack Obama on the phony bin Laden raid

Beats moon landing


----------



## QUENTIN

Bern80 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget due the events of the past week, "Atlas Shrugged" failed because it was a terrible story, poorly written, in defense of an ideology only supported by the chronically immature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will say this. You haters with your *shear* idiocy and lack of anything reflecting a constructive argument and what it reduces you to is *definatley* more entertaininig than the movie. Immaturity? Look no further than what you just wrote.
Click to expand...




Bern80 said:


> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain *arch types.*





Bern80 said:


> *garunteed* anyone a certain outcome.




Hahahaha.

"Shear idiocy." 



The people who disagree with you are "definatley" "shear" idiots for not appreciating Rand's "arch types" and thinking the American dream comes with a "garuntee." You're clearly much smarter.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.
> 
> In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.
> 
> Our objections aren't that the characters in the book _are bad._
> 
> Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.
> 
> Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.
> 
> Such is the nature of FICTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things _should_ be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to the question "What are her heros doing wrong"
> 
> I added why I thought that people who see her book as a model (Like GREENSPAN did for example) for how the world _ought to be_ are either idiots or liars.
Click to expand...


Actually no you didn't say that. You said that Rand supporters think the book reflects the real world, which is not true. You have failed epically to explain what is so idiotic about a piece of fictional social commentary that warns against persecuting societies producers. Keep trying.


----------



## Bern80

Smash_Hits said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.
> 
> In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.
> 
> Our objections aren't that the characters in the book _are bad._
> 
> Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.
> 
> Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.
> 
> Such is the nature of FICTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things _should_ be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conservatives have no idea how fiction works. Seriously, read a fucking book.
Click to expand...


Have read plenty, thanks, but feel free to enlighten me.


----------



## del

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. 

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. 


The other, of course, involves orcs.


----------



## Bern80

del said:


> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
> 
> One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
> 
> 
> The other, of course, involves orcs.



You're only three or four people late on that particular laughable attempt at a counter argument. 

One has to find it interesting that you believe those that don't expect hand outs from people or don't obligate others to their well being are the ones ill equipped to handle the real world.


----------



## elvis

rightwinger said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fake second birth certificate?  Get with the times bro...
> 
> We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?
> 
> I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that the ridiculously bad work that Obama flashed as real, you are the perfect useful idiot that populates the democrat party in such large numbers. I bet you would have a hard time with chads too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Winner, winner Chicken Dinner
Click to expand...


Laurence Fishburne, 21


----------



## del

Bern80 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
> 
> One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
> 
> 
> The other, of course, involves orcs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're only three or four people late on that particular laughable attempt at a counter argument.
> 
> One has to find it interesting that you believe those that don't expect hand outs from people or don't obligate others to their well being are the ones ill equipped to handle the real world.
Click to expand...


tissue, john?


----------



## editec

Big Fitz said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? *Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong.* What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.
> 
> In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.
> 
> Our objections aren't that the characters in the book _are bad._
> 
> Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.
> 
> Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.
> 
> Such is the nature of FICTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this what passes for critical thinking in your world?
> 
> Really??
Click to expand...

 
Yes, _really!_

Is your response to it what passes for critical thinking in your world?

No need to answer, Lad, that was a rhetorical question.


----------



## sparky

You people realize the libertopian heroine died suckin' up social handouts under the pseudonym Ann O'Conner, right?


----------



## editec

konradv said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, if you're only talking about the self-contained world of the book. If you're trying to make a statement about the real world, however, you'd have to do better than basing it on caricatures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a predictable response. Who ever said the book was based on anything going on in the real world? I ask again, what is WRONG with the heroes of the book? Or is it that you think their opposition is misrepresented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're trying to present a philosophy which is applicable to the real world, but present it in a book in which isn't based on anything in the real world, why should anyone pay attention? Remember, the title of the thread says the move will "change the face of American politics". How can that happen, if it's not based on anything real? Another contradiction in Objectivism, IMO, we're supposed to believe we can make a real change in the world based on something unreal!!!
Click to expand...

 
I think you are discounting the effect that literature can have on the public's perception.

Consider the change in public tolerance for slavery that resulted from  the fiction UNCLE TOM'S CABIN.


----------



## editec

sparky said:


> You people realize the libertopian heroine died suckin' up social handouts under the pseudonym Ann O'Conner, right?


 

They don't care.

Their minds (such as they are) are made up.


----------



## QUENTIN

del said:


> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
> 
> One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
> 
> 
> The other, of course, involves orcs.




el oh el


----------



## konradv

editec said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a predictable response. Who ever said the book was based on anything going on in the real world? I ask again, what is WRONG with the heroes of the book? Or is it that you think their opposition is misrepresented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're trying to present a philosophy which is applicable to the real world, but present it in a book in which isn't based on anything in the real world, why should anyone pay attention? Remember, the title of the thread says the move will "change the face of American politics". How can that happen, if it's not based on anything real? Another contradiction in Objectivism, IMO, we're supposed to believe we can make a real change in the world based on something unreal!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are discounting the effect that literature can have on the public's perception.
> 
> Consider the change in public tolerance for slavery that resulted from  the fiction UNCLE TOM'S CABIN.
Click to expand...


The difference being that _Uncle Tom's Cabin _had at least a passing resemblance to reality, unlike AS.


----------



## Big Fitz

Bern80 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
> 
> One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
> 
> 
> The other, of course, involves orcs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're only three or four people late on that particular laughable attempt at a counter argument.
> 
> One has to find it interesting that you believe those that don't expect hand outs from people or don't obligate others to their well being are the ones ill equipped to handle the real world.
Click to expand...

"There are those who are witty and those who quote witty people."  

Oscar Wilde.

Been seeing a lot of people quote witty retorts and specious arguments, but little individual wit and knowledge against Rand.

Irony not withstanding, another quote:

"If the law is on your side, you argue the law.
If morality is on your side, you argue morality.
If you have nothing on your side,
you smear your opponent."  
Unknown


----------



## Big Fitz

sparky said:


> You people realize the libertopian heroine died suckin' up social handouts under the pseudonym Ann O'Conner, right?


So?  Liberals grow their own personal wealth every day like they deserve them while railing against the rich.

See Boncher's Maxim below.


----------



## Bern80

del said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
> 
> One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
> 
> 
> The other, of course, involves orcs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're only three or four people late on that particular laughable attempt at a counter argument.
> 
> One has to find it interesting that you believe those that don't expect hand outs from people or don't obligate others to their well being are the ones ill equipped to handle the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> tissue, john?
Click to expand...


Why would I need a tissue? I'm not the one crying about what society owes me.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people realize the libertopian heroine died suckin' up social handouts under the pseudonym Ann O'Conner, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't care.
> 
> Their minds (such as they are) are made up.
Click to expand...


And yours isn't?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Smash_Hits said:


> While there are several organizations that apply regulations to businesses in the private sector, which is a good thing, they can't accomplish everything.



Again, would  you care to compare the ACCOMPLISHMENTS of UL or IEEE contrasted to the FDA or other bureaucracy?



> They can't actually FORCE a business to do something.



Consumers can, and do. No one will buy an electrical appliance that isn't US certified, no one will use parts or procedures in electronics that are not IEEE certified.



> They also can't cover everything; in the end, you'll need some government regulations.



Government can cover criminal acts, industry is FAR more effective at regulating itself. ISO-9001 and AS9100 are vastly more effective than any government regulation. It's government regulation that is a proven failure. Self-regulation is a demonstrable, irrefutable and overwhelming success.



> I was also speaking more of ethics regulations; I should have made myself clearer. Sorry about that.



You're simply wrong.



> Sounds pretty good to me.



I know.

There are many who fear and resist liberty. Along with liberty comes responsibility. Many would rather live under authoritarian rule than take responsibility for their own lives.



> There will always be people better suited to lead than others.



Leading point toward a goal. You advocate rulers who micromanage the lives of a captive populace.



> Sounds pretty anti-tax to me.



Nowhere in there does she advocate abolishing taxation. She states that in an ideal world it would be voluntary, then expands by saying such an ideal will not occur.



> So because TWO people have been able to rise up through the system proves that it works? How about no... think of the millions that CAN'T.



You confuse "don't" with can't. That fact is, birth has nothing to do with success - not a damned thing. This ain't India or Mexico, there is no caste system. "From shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations" was a phrase Dale Carnegie coined explaining that even among the wealthy, the great grandchildren slide right back into the masses in America. The overwhelming majority of those YOU would consider "rich," started with nothing. Yes, wealthy parents offer a better education than the socialized cesspool of public schools - that's about it.



> I'm not talking about people rising from the middle class to the top, I'm talking about the people that are born into poverty.



Happens every day.



> Capitalism has stopped working, or at least, it has STARTED to stop working.



Utter nonsense.



> There are numerous articles on this on the web.



On left wing hate sites... yawn.



> Did you know that in 2007 the top 1% of America owned ~43% of all the wealth...



So this is all about envy then? You'd gladly have less just as long as you could ensure that everyone else has as little as you?



> Uhhh, so? The fact of the matter is that they are still heavily disadvantaged, with very little opportunity to make their situation better.



Again, you are driven purely by envy, willing to suffer just for the opportunity to make others suffer.

I have a differing view point. If I have continuous improvement, it doesn't bother me that someone else may have even more.




> When did I say I was a socialist? All I am is someone who isn't an adult with the maturity level of a toddler.



Yet your entire premise is "NO FAIR, THEY GOT MORE!"


----------



## Uncensored2008

QUENTIN said:


> el oh el



One quick way to identify the stupid - they vote democrat.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Plasmaball said:


> or read every single one of your posts



That is an education in and of itself. It might even redeem ones such as you.

No guarantees, but what do you have to lose? I mean, your IQ can only go up....


----------



## Smash_Hits

Uncensored2008 said:


> Consumers can, and do. No one will buy an electrical appliance that isn't US certified, no one will use parts or procedures in electronics that are not IEEE certified.



Consumers can not regulate the market solely by themselves. There are some people who honestly do not give a shit whether a product was made ethically or not (by ethical I mean whether the company's workers were payed well, or whether jobs were outsourced, etc.). I don't see how anyone that claims to support America doesn't support legislation that makes sure that rampant outsourcing, etc. is not allowed. The consumer sure as hell isn't doing it.



> Government can cover criminal acts, industry is FAR more effective at regulating itself. ISO-9001 and AS9100 are vastly more effective than any government regulation. It's government regulation that is a proven failure. Self-regulation is a demonstrable, irrefutable and overwhelming success.



See above response.



> I know.
> 
> There are many who fear and resist liberty. Along with liberty comes responsibility. Many would rather live under authoritarian rule than take responsibility for their own lives.



When did I advocate authoritarian rule? All I'm saying is that some people are better suited to lead than others. I believe that a reasonable percentage of America could live in an anarchy, but I also believe a more sizable portion would go crazy and pillage, loot, rape etc.




> Leading point toward a goal. You advocate rulers who micromanage the lives of a captive populace.



Nobody has to live in a country. If you didn't want to live in my ideal country, I wouldn't make you stay. And I don't want micromanagement, I want fair and sensible rules and regulations.





> You confuse "don't" with can't. That fact is, birth has nothing to do with success - not a damned thing. This ain't India or Mexico, there is no caste system. "From shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations" was a phrase Dale Carnegie coined explaining that even among the wealthy, the great grandchildren slide right back into the masses in America. The overwhelming majority of those YOU would consider "rich," started with nothing. Yes, wealthy parents offer a better education than the socialized cesspool of public schools - that's about it.



Are you really that naïve? For one, we do have a caste system; it just isn't as pronounced or acknowledged as it is in India. Secondly, wealthy parents offer a much bigger advantage to their kids than schooling. Ever hear of inheritance? What about the fact that wealthy people are more likely to have "friends in high places."






> So this is all about envy then? You'd gladly have less just as long as you could ensure that everyone else has as little as you?
> 
> Again, you are driven purely by envy, willing to suffer just for the opportunity to make others suffer.
> 
> I have a differing view point. If I have continuous improvement, it doesn't bother me that someone else may have even more.



Why is it that conservatives always view liberals as being jealous about wealth? Is it because maybe they themselves can't imagine not being obsessed with money. I am honestly quite happy with my current life; I have everything I need. I just happen to have a conscience (look it up sometime; its an interesting concept), and I believe that being obscenely rich while others are struggling to make ends meet is inherently immoral and evil.




> Yet your entire premise is "NO FAIR, THEY GOT MORE!"




See above response.


----------



## QUENTIN

Uncensored2008 said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> el oh el
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One quick way to identify the stupid - they vote democrat.
Click to expand...


I agree. I've never done that and almost certainly never will.

Another quick way to identify the stupid - they vote Republican.


----------



## QUENTIN

Well, another weekend passes with new results in showing another dive at the box-office for the complete non-phenomenon and abject failure that was Atlas Shrugged the movie.

The film fell to 31st place at the box-office, dropping 57.8% of its audience from last week, losing more than a third of its theaters, and taking in just $197, 500 dollars with a miserable per-screen average of $866.

After a month in release, the movie has only recouped $4.3 million of its $20 million dollar production budget, less than a quarter, and is moving swiftly toward being yanked from the few remaining theaters still showing it as continuing to screen it continues to increase the distributor's substantial losses.

I predicted 3 weeks ago it would make only $5 million while naysayers predicted an expansion and a surge; even a phenomenon that would change the face of American politics. It's fun to rub it in but a shame that those who made such lofty predictions, despite apparently continuing to read and participate in the thread, cowardly refuse to acknowledge how incredibly wrong they were.

So washamericon, what say you about Atlas Shrugged's performance? Surely you must have some thoughts...

Do you expect it will become a phenomenon and make back its money on home video? Or can we put a fork in it and its planned sequels?


----------



## editec

I hear somebody's going to make DAS KAPITAL into a film, too.

I suspect that isn't going to do all that well, either.

Speaking of movies with a political POV that bombed at the box office?

*REDS*



> Released on December 4th, 1981, _Reds_ opened to fairly positive reviews from critics. Due to its political subject matter and limited promotion by Warren Beatty, it *managed to recoup its $35 million budget back and grossed $41 million in the United States. *Although it was seen as a disappoinment, Beatty later remarked that the film "made a little money" in box office returns.
> 
> _The movie currently holds a high rating on the website Rotten Tomatoes, scoring at 94%._ The review stated that, "At a time when Ronald Reagan had just become the president of the United States, Beatty's sympathetic portrait of notorious American communist John Reed seemed even more daring. Yet, as it continues to age, the film only continues to grow in relevance, assuring its rightful place at the top of the Hollywood canon".[9]


 
Atals Shrugged needed more car chases, maybe a subplot involving a teen boy trying to get laid, and it might have helped if Dafney had been trying to keep a stuggling STRIPE JOINT from being taken over instead of a boring old railroad.

THEN it might have had some BO appeal, know what I mean?


----------



## Uncensored2008

QUENTIN said:


> I agree. I've never done that and almost certainly never will.
> 
> Another quick way to identify the stupid - they vote Republican.



Yep.

Last Republican I voted for in a presidential election was Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Smash_Hits said:


> Consumers can not regulate the market solely by themselves.



That claim has already been proven false. UL, IEEE and a dozen other such organizations prove that consumers can and do regulate markets - and do so far more effectively than government.



> There are some people who honestly do not give a shit whether a product was made ethically or not (by ethical I mean whether the company's workers were payed well, or whether jobs were outsourced, etc.).



That is irrelevant - to both the discussion and to reality. 



> I don't see how anyone that claims to support America doesn't support legislation that makes sure that rampant outsourcing, etc. is not allowed. The consumer sure as hell isn't doing it.



So you are suggesting that no foreign goods be allowed in the USA?



> See above response.



The above, idiotic response failed to address the point at hand. 



> When did I advocate authoritarian rule?



In your every post, with your every call for a managed economy where government dictates who may make what and who will pay how much for what they are permitted to buy. 



> All I'm saying is that some people are better suited to lead than others.



I think your SEUI "leaders" have done a piss-poor job of leading you. 



> I believe that a reasonable percentage of America could live in an anarchy, but I also believe a more sizable portion would go crazy and pillage, loot, rape etc.



No one has advocated anarchy.



> Nobody has to live in a country. If you didn't want to live in my ideal country, I wouldn't make you stay.



Your ideal country seems to be North Korea, and they do make people stay.



> And I don't want micromanagement,



You just want government to decide who can make what and how much they will be paid for it, not micromanagement.....



> Are you really that naïve? For one, we do have a caste system;



No, we certainly don't. 



> Secondly, wealthy parents offer a much bigger advantage to their kids than schooling. Ever hear of inheritance?



Outside of the corrupt and failed dynasty of the Kennedy's, just who is it that inherited a thing? The Walton's?  They are destroying the family fortune just like the Kennedy's did.

Top 10 richest.

1. Bill Gates - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing. Donating his wealth to Charity.
2. Warren Buffet - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing. Donating his wealth to Charity.
3. Larry Elison - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing. 
4. Christy Walton - Inherited from Sam Walton
5. Charles Koch - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing. 
6. David Koch - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing. 
7. - 9. Walton brats
10. Michael Bloomberg - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing. 

The Richest People in America - Forbes.com

Like most socialists - you are full on full of shit.



> Why is it that conservatives always view liberals as being jealous about wealth?



Because of your seething envy.

It isn't about what YOU have or don't have, it's always "WAAAAHHHH - no fair they got more."

You leftists are spoiled children.

BTW, you're no "liberal," you are just another authoritarian leftist.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Plasmaball said:


> not if i keep on reading your shit



It can't go down Pussball, it sure can't go down....


----------



## Dante

Intense said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand was an idiot -- a very bright one, but an idiot. She had a twisted sense of self and life from being scarred as a child. She never did get the fact that Socialist Russia was not the USA. She's like the rape victim who sees a rapist in every male figure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She never did get the fact that Socialist Russia was not the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes she did, and she saw whats coming, where we are headed. That is her whole point Dante, Good one.  Try reading "Anthem", you should be able to read it in a single sitting. Ayn knew exactly what to sound the alarm over, which is exactly why the Powers that be want her shut up.
Click to expand...


The powers that be want to shut her up?


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if anyone wanted to see a successful version of the world that her opposition would like to live in... oh wait, there ain't one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is;
> 
> Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) - IMDb
> 
> The dream of leftists everywhere.
Click to expand...



You internet dolts exist in a version of Brave New World and are as clueless as you are ignorant. An oxymoron with a distinction with a difference.


----------



## Dante

Bones said:


> Ayn Rand was quite a demented soul.  Only a sociopath extols the virtues of selfishness and lambastes altruism.  Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?



very well put.


----------



## Dante

As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest. - Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet


----------



## Bones

Dante said:


> As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest. - Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet


Yep.  That awkward gremlin turned out to be nothing more than a hypocrite, suckin' off the system she told her acolytes to not suck off of.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> You internet dolts exist in a version of Brave New World and are as clueless as you are ignorant. An oxymoron with a distinction with a difference.



Were you trying to formulate a meaningful sentence there, sparky?

I suppose that with you low-double digit IQ, it isn't that bad.

(Look, I AM giving positive reinforcement!)


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You internet dolts exist in a version of Brave New World and are as clueless as you are ignorant. An oxymoron with a distinction with a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you trying to formulate a meaningful sentence there, sparky?
> 
> I suppose that with you low-double digit IQ, it isn't that bad.
> 
> (Look, I AM giving positive reinforcement!)
Click to expand...


more proof of things as they are ... not as your infantile mind believes.

thanks


----------



## Big Fitz

NOW it's a PARTY!  Dante's here to lead the band!

and a one... and a two and a....


----------



## Bern80

Dante said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand was quite a demented soul.  Only a sociopath extols the virtues of selfishness and lambastes altruism.  Moreover, her prose was stilted and beyond boring.  How can people seriously latch on to such bogus jabberwocky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> very well put.
Click to expand...


If this it what qualifies for well put objective criticism in your world I'm afraid your opinion is about as non-credible as his.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> more proof of things as they are ... not as your infantile mind believes.
> 
> thanks



I'm sure that somewhere in the damaged wetware that constitutes a "mind" for you, that made some sort of sense..

Some friendly advice, cut down on the psychoactive drugs. Seriously!


----------



## washamericom

rightwinger said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Washie....
> 
> You still here?
> 
> I thought you sulked away when this thread failed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10,000 readers and 1000 comments... did it ?? i've been busy with the fake second brth certificate scandal which seems to be gaining interest again. thanks for caring, i'm deeply moved, by your warmth and compassion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fake second birth certificate?  Get with the times bro...
> 
> We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?
> 
> I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy
Click to expand...


thank you


----------



## Smash_Hits

Uncensored2008 said:


> Smash_Hits said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consumers can not regulate the market solely by themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That claim has already been proven false. UL, IEEE and a dozen other such organizations prove that consumers can and do regulate markets - and do so far more effectively than government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some people who honestly do not give a shit whether a product was made ethically or not (by ethical I mean whether the company's workers were payed well, or whether jobs were outsourced, etc.).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is irrelevant - to both the discussion and to reality.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are suggesting that no foreign goods be allowed in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> The above, idiotic response failed to address the point at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> In your every post, with your every call for a managed economy where government dictates who may make what and who will pay how much for what they are permitted to buy.
> 
> 
> 
> I think your SEUI "leaders" have done a piss-poor job of leading you.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has advocated anarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> Your ideal country seems to be North Korea, and they do make people stay.
> 
> 
> 
> You just want government to decide who can make what and how much they will be paid for it, not micromanagement.....
> 
> 
> 
> No, we certainly don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, wealthy parents offer a much bigger advantage to their kids than schooling. Ever hear of inheritance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outside of the corrupt and failed dynasty of the Kennedy's, just who is it that inherited a thing? The Walton's?  They are destroying the family fortune just like the Kennedy's did.
> 
> Top 10 richest.
> 
> 1. Bill Gates - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing. Donating his wealth to Charity.
> 2. Warren Buffet - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing. Donating his wealth to Charity.
> 3. Larry Elison - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing.
> 4. Christy Walton - Inherited from Sam Walton
> 5. Charles Koch - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing.
> 6. David Koch - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing.
> 7. - 9. Walton brats
> 10. Michael Bloomberg - Came from the middle class and inherited nothing.
> 
> The Richest People in America - Forbes.com
> 
> Like most socialists - you are full on full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that conservatives always view liberals as being jealous about wealth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of your seething envy.
> 
> It isn't about what YOU have or don't have, it's always "WAAAAHHHH - no fair they got more."
> 
> You leftists are spoiled children.
> 
> BTW, you're no "liberal," you are just another authoritarian leftist.
Click to expand...


I'm done. There is no use arguing with someone who plugs their ears and yells LALALALALALA while someone brings up legitimate counter-points. I tried to be polite (or at least moderately civil), but you really can't get through a single post without at least 10 ad hominem attacks. Grow up a bit, then I'll argue with you.
I honestly don't care if you want to gloat and say I'm just leaving because I can't argue my point anymore. I'm done arguing with pseudo-intellectual dipshits like you. 

You are, quite literally, the cancer that is killing America.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Smash_Hits said:


> I'm done.



I accept your surrender. You were entirely incapable of presenting anything approaching a cogent argument. Better that you slink off and pout.


----------



## Liberty

anyone here enjoy a bag of cheetos? It ain't easy being cheesey.


----------



## Dante

Liberty said:


> anyone here enjoy a bag of cheetos? It ain't easy being cheesey.



no thanks


----------



## washamericom

part two comes out tomorrow. the reason it will change the face of politcs now is because sean hannity and jaun williams and that meathead bob beckel are in the movie. rand's core principles are reflected in the struggle between capitalism, individual achievement and the obama/chicago machine push for european type socialism.

people are tired of working hard to build something only to have the government whisk it all away.
the next stop in obama's dream train will be the confiscation of private property, to be redistributed to underachievers and the lesser economic class by a subjective elite ruling government class.

 this concept was also outlined in fritz lang's metropolis. hypocritical obama lives like a king while his subjects continue to suffer. the media has an obama agenda.

if obama survives his many scandals, a second term would certainly further weaken our economy, threaten our national security, and diminish our political standing in the world arena.


----------



## JakeStarkey

America won't even shrug, wash.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> America won't even shrug, wash.



You have bigger things to worry about than a movie, Jakematters.

Like the puddle of your own piss that you're fearfully wallowing in, and the fact that your Messiah® is now losing the election.

Bummer, fakey.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have to be worry about we good Republicans crushing the far right and the libertarians once Romney has won.  That the guy is on our side is going to make it much easier.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Are you drunk again and snacking on lead paint chips, Jakematters?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Study Mitt's entire life, Uncensored.  He is not a Beckian, a Skousenite, or any type of Bircher.  He is a businessman who understands that regulation is needed.  He will support some form of ACA and expansion of Medicaid, while protecting Medicare and SS.  The major issue will be Defense and how much he is willing to spend.


----------



## washamericom

JakeStarkey said:


> America won't even shrug, wash.



we will if obama steals the election again, jake moonbeam.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Wash, you will live by what We the People decide, or you will break the and pay the price. And no one will even shrug at stupid you.


----------



## uscitizen

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Trailer - YouTube
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



Waited your whole life?
Pretty pathetic if you ask me.


----------



## skookerasbil

konradv said:


> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.




Of course you found it boring.............

All far left guys find stuff like this boring because they dont peossess the ability to think on the margin. Life is all about understanding the necessary tradeoffs in decisionmaking = not a factor in liberal thinking.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Ayn Rands and their followers are the sheeple-brained or bird-brained of humanity.

Buncha fookin' loons.


----------



## newpolitics

Ayn Rand has a slanted viewpoint because of where she came from. Her complete demonization of any and all regulation or impedence to the free-market is a complete over-reaction to what she saw in her homeland, and her attempt to generalize things by means of fallacious inductive reasoning, namely, from Russia to America, is simply unsound. She tries to create a black and white world where all regulation is bad. She fails to note the major and minor details between what the effects of regulation in Russia and the effects had here. I find her ideas preposterous. Certainly, there is some truth, however little, to what she observed, and there may be a very small amount of axiomatic truth there, perhaps that too much regulation may stifle an economy, but that is it, and this is obvious and intuitive. We don't need Rand to tell us this. To take the whole thing as an axiomatic or necessary truth because she was somehow able to demonstrate this with a few novels, is fucking really stupid.


----------



## Old Rocks

Paul Ryan&#8217;s Guru Ayn Rand Worshipped A Serial Killer Who Kidnapped and Dismembered Little Girls - By Mark Ames - The eXiled

So what, and who, was Ayn Rand for and against? The best way to get to the bottom of it is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten by Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation &#8212; Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street &#8212; on him.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: &#8220;Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,&#8221; she wrote, gushing that Hickman had &#8220;no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel &#8216;other people.&#8217;&#8221;

This echoes almost word for word Rand&#8217;s later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: &#8220;He was born without the ability to consider others.&#8221;

(The Fountainhead is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas&#8217;s favorite book &#8212; he even makes his clerks learn it, much as Vice President-to-be Paul Ryan tried making his interns read Rand.)

I&#8217;ll get to where Rand picked up her silly Superman blather from later &#8212; but first, let&#8217;s meet William Edward Hickman, the &#8220;genuinely beautiful soul&#8221; and inspiration to Ayn Rand. What you will read below &#8212; the real story, details included, of what made Hickman a &#8220;Superman&#8221; in Ayn Rand&#8217;s eyes &#8212; is rather gory reading, even if you&#8217;re a longtime fan of true crime &#8220;Death Porn&#8221; &#8212; so prepare yourself. Because you should read this to give Rand&#8217;s ideas their proper context, and to repeat this over and over until all of America understands what made this fucked-up Russian nerd&#8217;s mind tick, because Rand&#8217;s influence over the very people leading the fight to kill social programs, and her ideological influence on so many powerful bankers, regulators and businessmen who brought the financial markets crashing down, means that it&#8217;s suicide to ignore her, no matter how dumb, silly or beneath you her books and ideas are.


----------



## konradv

skookerasbil said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written.  It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again.  It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures.  Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it.  Thirty years later I did and know why.  It stinks!!!  The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you found it boring.............
> 
> All far left guys find stuff like this boring because they dont peossess the ability to think on the margin. Life is all about understanding the necessary tradeoffs in decisionmaking = not a factor in liberal thinking.
Click to expand...


Ayn Rand didn't believe in trade offs.  Are you sure you understand her?  It was all lock step, there's only one right way, her way.

BTW, thanks for resurrecting my post from a year and a half ago.  I stand by my analysis of Rand's opus interminus.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Wash, you will live by what We the People decide, or you will break the and pay the price. And no one will even shrug at stupid you.



Would that be "we the ACORN people, Jakematters?"


----------



## JWBooth

I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> The Ayn Rands and their followers are the sheeple-brained or bird-brained of humanity.
> 
> Buncha fookin' loons.



Well, not everyone can have Keith Olbermann do their thinking for them, the way you do, Jakematters.


----------



## flacaltenn

I can't go see the 2nd installment of the movie because all I can see on the screen is our fine collection of USMB leftist characters playing the villians.. 

No one likes to be pegged that accurately... Do they Jake????


----------



## JakeStarkey

Come on, Tug, play the man, and go see it, even if the bad lefties are laughing at you.  I am Republican and I think both book and film are pieces of libertarian crap.  But go for it, if you want.


----------



## Avorysuds

The movie was "mostly" bad imo. It seemed more like a made for TV movie. I found it annoying that over and over and over the repeated free markets VS Government planning and "fairness."

There were about 12-20 people in the theater, I didn&#8217;t really look. There were 2 guys near me, one old and one maybe 35&#8230; The old guy would stop his feet while giggling out loud during every &#8220;Government regulation and control destroys out desire to be productive&#8221; speech. The old mother fucker would also hum &#8220;Mmmm Hmm!&#8221; probably 60ish times during the movie whenever the &#8220;Big business men&#8221; would tell off some Government loving peon. The younger guy would talk less often but again, I don&#8217;t need peoples useless, annoying commentary over a movie&#8230; I almost stop up and yelled at the old fat fucker, I was that fed up with hearing his giggling and other crap.

While I generally agreed with the argument of Free markets VS massive Government control, it was very very poorly done seeing as it was pushed to a point of boring as it kept repeating the same lines over and over&#8230; and over&#8230;&#8230; and again&#8230;..1 more time, no no, 1 more, and another&#8230;. 

The special effects were incredibly subpar, the acting seemed again like a TV movie and the story moved very slowly at points, dragging to get through far too many scenes. The only thing more annoying than the old dip shit man who seemed to feel it was his duty to talk over the movies the entire time was the line &#8220;who is Jon Gault.&#8221; It makes no fucking sense to say and by the end I still had no idea why people kept repeating it when even the characters claimed several times during the movies they had no idea wtf it means&#8230;.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Avorysuds; have you read the book?

If so, was the movie true to the novel?


----------



## Avorysuds

Uncensored2008 said:


> Avorysuds; have you read the book?
> 
> If so, was the movie true to the novel?



I never heard of the book until I saw the movie, and that was like 2 days ago... So no.


----------



## Article 15

If reading Atlas Shrugged "changed your life" you got some real issues.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Avorysuds said:


> I never heard of the book until I saw the movie, and that was like 2 days ago... So no.



I assumed as much.

I watched part 1 on Netflix and thought it did a decent job, but I have read the book. I noticed that it was "preaching to the choir" in that it was assumed that the viewer had read the book.

I think that the speech on money by Francisco d'Aconia is one of the most powerful pieces of writing I've ever encountered; but it is perhaps too long for a film.

{"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of GOODS. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil? }


----------



## Uncensored2008

Article 15 said:


> If reading Atlas Shrugged "changed your life" you got some real issues.



Why? "Green Eggs and Ham" changed yours, didn't it? (Since it is the most complex book you've read to date.)


----------



## Article 15

Unhinged2008 is a prime example of how taking a fantasy novel too seriously can fuck up your psyche.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Article 15 said:


> Unhinged2008 is a prime example of how taking a fantasy novel too seriously can fuck up your psyche.



You think "Atlas Shrugged" is "fantasy," sparky?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You just can't make this shit up.....


----------



## Article 15

Uncensored2008 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unhinged2008 is a prime example of how taking a fantasy novel too seriously can fuck up your psyche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think "Atlas Shrugged" is "fantasy," sparky?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> You just can't make this shit up.....
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br5h9G--GoU]Tom and Jerry - Right on the face - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

Arty well exemplifies why this movie won't do well. Sadly, much of America is far too stupid to grasp the concepts presented.

Philosophy in general is not well suited to the screen. Epistemology is a discipline that requires one to ponder, to consider. 

A dolt like Arty would not consider ideas in any setting, but for those who have the intellect to grasp such things, the silver screen is a poor medium to present them on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored would have made a decent Nazi newspaper hack.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored would have made a decent Nazi newspaper hack.



Like most leftist regressives, Jakematters has a low, two digit IQ. His most profound philosophical contemplation consists of "I want."


----------



## JakeStarkey

See how Uncensored spins those lies, almost as if he believes them, like a real nazi.


----------



## mamooth

So, "Atlas Shrugged 2: Electric Bugaloo" has tanked just as badly as part I did, losing just as many millions.

Will part 3 get made? They'll have to find another entirely new cast again. Even the Part 2 cast of hasbeens, neverwases and whothehellisthats won't want their resumes stained by further association with the franchise.

Naturally, the true believers will be unable to accept that the movie simply stank, and that the philosophy in it is retarded. That's why they're proclaiming how everyone but themselves is just too stupid to see the obvious brilliance in Rand's fantasy novel.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And the world did not shrug.  There will be no part III.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mamooth said:


> So, "Atlas Shrugged 2: Electric Bugaloo" has tanked just as badly as part I did, losing just as many millions.



I realize that you're a hate filled, mindless hack, but Pt.1 made a nice profit. Video and Netflix were/are brisk. Pt. 2 will also do well.



> Will part 3 get made? They'll have to find another entirely new cast again. Even the Part 2 cast of hasbeens, neverwases and whothehellisthats won't want their resumes stained by further association with the franchise.



Will you cry when it's made?

Will you hide under your bed and pull the wings off cock roaches?



> Naturally, the true believers will be unable to accept that the movie simply stank, and that the philosophy in it is retarded. That's why they're proclaiming how everyone but themselves is just too stupid to see the obvious brilliance in Rand's fantasy novel.



You lacked the intellect to grasp the book (but in fairness, you did seem to get the main plot of "Green Eggs and Ham!") so what would make you think you had the IQ point requisite to grasp the movies.

Oh, that's right, you never saw them, you're just spewing shit because you're a leftist.

Carry on.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> And the world did not shrug.  There will be no part III.



You said there would be no part II, Jakematters...

But, you're an idiot, which is why you're a leftist.

Oh BTW, your Messiah® is losing the election. Are you going to riot?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You said the world would not move if Obama were elected, Uncensored.

Romney seems to have a real chance to win, which pleases me no end, and I am looking forward to we good guys and girls purging anyone who even thinks like you from the party.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ps: bad book, worse movie.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> You said the world would not move if Obama were elected, Uncensored.



That right, Jakematters? So you can post a link?

Oh, you were just lying, I get it. Hey, you're a leftist, you have no integrity, I understand.



> Romney seems to have a real chance to win, which pleases me no end, and I am looking forward to we good guys and girls purging anyone who even thinks like you from the party.



Romney most likely will win, which means Fabians like you will be out of luck.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> ps: bad book, worse movie.



Stick to "Green Eggs and Ham," it's more on your intellectual level.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored, go back to pleasuring your male customers and leave the politics to us adults.


----------



## QUENTIN

Uncensored2008 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, "Atlas Shrugged 2: Electric Bugaloo" has tanked just as badly as part I did, losing just as many millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you're a hate filled, mindless hack, but Pt.1 made a nice profit. Video and Netflix were/are brisk. Pt. 2 will also do well.
Click to expand...


No it didn't. It made less than $5 million in theaters, less than $3 million in DVD sales, $100,000 for Netflix rights, and less than $30,000 On Demand. Its total gross over a year after its release is under $8 million which isn't even half of the film's 20 million dollar production budget (not to mention another $5+ million in marketing costs that went unrecouped). You're just making up the false claim that it "made a nice profit." It was a total flop.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) - Box Office Mojo
Movie Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 - DVD Sales - The Numbers


----------



## JakeStarkey

The film made about 40 to 45% of its production cost.

And you teach economics adjunct.  Send your comment in here to the division head and see how long you have a job.



Uncensored2008 said:


> I realize that you're a hate filled, mindless hack, but Pt.1 made a nice profit. Video and Netflix were/are brisk. Pt. 2 will also do well.


----------



## LoneLaugher

The OP waited his whole life for a flop. Cool.


----------



## rightwinger

LoneLaugher said:


> The OP waited his whole life for a flop. Cool.



Rotten Tomatoes had Part II at 5%

Worse than the first one


----------



## flacaltenn

I went to see Part II today.. Wanted to make my contribution towards the production of Part III.. 
The value of something like this goes up astronomically -- when all 3 parts are available in a Boxed Set.

I learned A LOT more about how to vote next week from Atlas Shrugged than I did from the "Big Bird" ads. And they cost about the same to make and distribute. 

You can't blame Ayn Rand for a writing a book that's STILL politically relevent 60 yrs after it first published. It never was commercial drama. But that's a refreshing change of diet..


----------



## JakeStarkey

The book was never relevant and neither are her followers.


----------



## flacaltenn

What's not relevent at all is the media coverage of politics in this country. Atlas Shrugged is timeless documentation of the dangers of allowing the government to micromanage our lives. And of the uselessness of trying to scapegoat the producers and creators of wealth.

You can stick with your "homeless guy" politics and Big Bird. I'll stay with the "bigger picture" of why I oppose collectivism in all it's forms..


----------



## JakeStarkey

The book is a timeless documentation that witnesses what loons libertarianism (and communism, its flip side) draw from the weak and addled among humanity.


----------



## VoteForTheDucks

I read the book, but the world isn't as clear-cut as Rand would have you believe.  Welfare is necessary for people bouncing back.  J.K Rowling was on welfare before she wrote her children's novels, and look how much she has contributed to the economy with Harry Potter.
The world isn't filled with makers and takers.  It's filled with people who are both, and sometimes, we all need a little help.


----------



## flacaltenn

VoteForTheDucks said:


> I read the book, but the world isn't as clear-cut as Rand would have you believe.  Welfare is necessary for people bouncing back.  J.K Rowling was on welfare before she wrote her children's novels, and look how much she has contributed to the economy with Harry Potter.
> The world isn't filled with makers and takers.  It's filled with people who are both, and sometimes, we all need a little help.



You'll notice in Atlas Shrugged, that there IS compassion for the massively unemployed. 
It's a prime reason for the industrialists to keep trying. BECAUSE they realize that their decisions have an impact on society as well as themselves. 

And the argument about social safety nets is barely mentioned. NOT because it's reviled by the economically successful.. but because the LARGER BATTLE is against the govt use of force to take and direct private assets. In fact, the overblown industrial heroes have patently GOOD relationships with their employees and reward them more than adequately.

*The conflict is one of MISUSING govt power to bastardize science and market and destroy the system that CREATES jobs and wealth by doing so.. *

It's NOT a class warfare meme.. Or a commentary at all on "welfare"...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Libertarians would misuse government power: nuff said.


----------



## Immanuel

JakeStarkey said:


> Libertarians would misuse government power: nuff said.



What? Are you saying liberals and conservatives don't?

Immie


----------



## Uncensored2008

VoteForTheDucks said:


> I read the book, but the world isn't as clear-cut as Rand would have you believe.  Welfare is necessary for people bouncing back.  J.K Rowling was on welfare before she wrote her children's novels, and look how much she has contributed to the economy with Harry Potter.
> The world isn't filled with makers and takers.  It's filled with people who are both, and sometimes, we all need a little help.



From your comments, I'd hazard that didn't actually read the book, but instead rely on what the hate sites said about it.

There is very little about "welfare" in it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Immanuel said:


> What? Are you saying liberals and conservatives don't?
> 
> Immie



Jakematters is saying whatever ThinkProgress is saying. As usual....


----------



## JakeStarkey

To recap: Uncensored and the rest of the libertarians continue to demonstrate they don't get what America is about.  But God love them all anyway.

We are 8 days out and almost nothing will change between now and Election Tuesday.

I wish you all the best as Americans, and I will pray that you remember that which unites us more than divides us.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

_There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs._
    Jonathan Chait

Nonetheless, the title of this thread, 





> "atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics


is true. 

Its embarrassing to think about but there are actually politicians whose careers have been informed by a second rate book, written by a nazi sympathizer who took advantage of welfare and believed in abortion on demand. IOW, the opposite of what her followers say they believe. 

That hypocrisy is something the author and her followers have in common.


----------



## flacaltenn

no Nazi sympathizer. no "took advantage of welfare" argument. Luddite has no depth of capability to discuss the work -- only to lie about the author.. 

We've done this argument before Luddite and your side is just desparate to avoid a real discussion..


----------



## Luddly Neddite

flacaltenn said:


> no Nazi sympathizer. no "took advantage of welfare" argument. Luddite has no depth of capability to discuss the work -- only to lie about the author..
> 
> We've done this argument before Luddite and your side is just desparate to avoid a real discussion..



Suggest you research your hero under her married name, Ann O'Connor, wife of Frank O'Connor. 

As for "avoiding discussion", I already commented and really, what more is there to say? She was in favor of abortion on demand, she was a nazi sympathizer, she was NOT a Christian and she was a hypocrite who hated Medicare right up until her heavy smoking gave her lung cancer. 

But her books do matter to teepotter types and others who don't really think things through.


----------



## Uncensored2008

luddly.neddite said:


> Suggest you research your hero under her married name, Ann O'Connor, wife of Frank O'Connor.
> 
> As for "avoiding discussion", I already commented and really, what more is there to say? She was in favor of abortion on demand, she was a nazi sympathizer, she was NOT a Christian and she was a hypocrite who hated Medicare right up until her heavy smoking gave her lung cancer.



You mean she accessed the benefits she had been paying into for 50 years?

Damn, I guess if you had a car crash, you wouldn't put in a claim, right?



> But her books do matter to teepotter types and others who don't really think things through.



I understand that Rand is WAY over the head of leftist-regressive types.

{To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it." 
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. } - From "Atlas Shrugged."


----------



## flacaltenn

> Classically Liberal: Lying about Ayn Rand and Social Security
> 
> in 1966 Rand's Objectivist Newsletter said that not collecting from programs that one is forced to finance would be wrong. It said:
> ...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money&#8212;and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.
> The AlterNet smear also claimed that Rand said that the link between smoking and cancer was a hoax. She actually never said that. She said she was not convinced that the case had been made, and at the time it hadn't been fully made. She never said it was a hoax and she stopped smoking instantly when her physician showed her a dark spot on her own lung's x-ray.
> 
> 
> According to AlterNet one Evva Joan Pryor, "who had been a social worker in New Yorker" said that "I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory." What job was that? Well, if you believe AlterNet she was "social worker" during this period. The implication being that Rand had to seek out a social worker to help her. Some smear-mongers of Rand have argued with me that she died penniless as the result of the evils of capitalism and that was why she sought out this social worker.
> 
> 
> Pryor was NOT a social worker. She worked for the law firm of Ernst, Crane Gitlin & Winick which handled all legal matters for Rand. Nor was Rand penniless or in need. She was penniless when she arrived in America but during this period she had cash reserves of a few hundred thousand dollars and a steady income from book royalties.
> 
> Rand had sufficient resources to cover the health issues she faced. In fact, she had sufficient funds to pay for heart surgery for her brother-in-law from Russia. Rand's estate had a substantial sum of cash at the time of Rand's death indicating that Pryor's concerns that health costs could "bankrupt" Rand never took place. And, since Pryor argued that Rand should have these things in case health care bankrupted her, it is entirely possible that Rand never got a cent. We just don't know. But if she did, there is nothing to attack her over either.



Damn straight. I've been FORCED into Soc Sec and Medicare and it would be immoral NOT to take my benefits and encourage that kind of coercion... THAT --- is not welfare. The reciepients are ALL CONTRIBUTORS... 



> But there are stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. *The fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The socialist-communist axis offers its victims an alleged social ideal. The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national &#8220;greatness.&#8221; *The socialist-communist axis proclaims some grandiose economic plan, which keeps receding year by year. *The fascist-Nazi axis merely extols leadership&#8212;leadership without purpose, program or direction&#8212;and power for power&#8217;s sake*.


  from --- &#8220;The Fascist New Frontier,&#8221;
The Ayn Rand Column, #98 

Oh my .. She was in favor of abortion on demand.. How awful to be pro-choice about EVERYTHING !!!

You got nothing Luddite..


----------



## Luddly Neddite

> You mean she accessed the benefits she had been paying into for 50 years?



Exactly and thank you for making my point for me.

Like the potters today, she was dead set against until she needed it. 

Like potters today, she didn't care about anyone but herself. She would have taken that safety net away from others but was quick to grab it for herself.

At least she was not a teepotter hypocrite about abortion.


----------



## Uncensored2008

luddly.neddite said:


> Exactly and thank you for making my point for me.
> 
> Like the potters today, she was dead set against until she needed it.



No sparky, she was against FORCED PARTICIPATION in a government run plan. Since she was already forced to pay the premiums, accessing the benefits was only sensible.

You regressives seem to think that because we oppose government mandated programs, we should just pay in, but not receive benefits - which would be stupid. If we were stupid, we'd be regressives...



> Like potters today, she didn't care about anyone but herself. She would have taken that safety net away from others but was quick to grab it for herself.
> 
> At least she was not a teepotter hypocrite about abortion.



Rand recognized that private industry does a far better job of administering such plans. 

Do you depend on SS or a 401K (in your case, a taxpayer funded government pension?) If one recognizes the flaws in SS and has a 401K, should they be denied SS payments?

See, what you advocate makes no sense at all. I realize you're just reading idiocy from the leftist hate sites, but what they are feeding you is stupid.


----------



## flacaltenn

luddly.neddite said:


> You mean she accessed the benefits she had been paying into for 50 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly and thank you for making my point for me.
> 
> Like the potters today, she was dead set against until she needed it.
> 
> Like potters today, she didn't care about anyone but herself. She would have taken that safety net away from others but was quick to grab it for herself.
> 
> At least she was not a teepotter hypocrite about abortion.
Click to expand...


1) Not clear that "she needed it" since she died with a fairly large estate and plenty of royalties still streaming in.. 

2) Not a person on the planet who can tie Rand to the Tea Party. Although she might have said better things about them "potters" than she did about the Libertarians who hold her in deep regard. She BLASTED the newly formed Lib Party as not being "judgemental enough" about bad choices that folks made like drug use and political tolerance. 

Go ahead -- give us your NEXT best shot about "nazi sympathizer".. Or non- Christian abortion supporter. 

The fact is --- that she so accurately painted the dangers of expansive central govt that her work will be relevent for centuries.. And THAT is why the attraction is there to the Tea Party movement. 

Same deal with a majority of OWS yahoos loving Saul Alinsky -- but not because he was a collectivist..


----------



## flacaltenn

Luddly will come back in a day, a week or a month and make the SAME EXACT faulty allegations.. 

USMB is really like "GroundHog Day".. A living hell for facts and reason...  No wonder objectivism is such a threat to them.. 

(or maybe USMB is more like Whack-a-Mole))       LOL..


----------



## washamericom

sorry I took so long, i'm back... did I miss anything ??


----------



## MikeK

flacaltenn said:


> [...]
> 
> 1) Not clear that "she needed it" since she died with a fairly large estate and plenty of royalties still streaming in.
> 
> [...]


The point is not whether or not she needed it but whether or not she was a worthless hypocrite, which clearly seems to be the case.

(Excerpt)

_However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."
_

Michael Ford: Ayn Rand and the VIP-DIPers

(Close)


----------



## washamericom

watch the mass exidous from california to texas... democrat rule to one of the successful 30 republican governed states....   or watch for an early retirement by the captains of industry, which made this country what it is...   atlas shrugged


----------



## editec

Nobody could knock down literary socialist strawmen like Ayn.

She was a master of creating easy targets for our contempt.

I remember reading AS in the early 60s and root root rooting for her team, too.

Of course I was like 14 or so, the ideal age to think like a libertarian.


----------



## EriktheRed

Always worth repeating:



> Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.


----------



## Dante

"atlas shrugged" IS helping to change the face of American politics

How?

by exposing Randian Nitwits and other right wingers for what fruitcakes they truly are


----------



## Dante

EriktheRed said:


> Always worth repeating:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.
Click to expand...


Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other is, of course, about orcs.   the internet.


----------



## Truthmatters

rand was a crapy writer who hated mankind and though being selfish was a sign of greatness.


She ended up on SS and died a pauper.


great hero morons


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Did Ayn Rand walk point for the masters of the universe? Or was she a ditzy windbag selling books to immature thinkers to make a living? 
Here are the facts. 
You decide.  


On abortion
'*Abortion is a moral right--which should be left to the sole discretion  of the woman involved*,' [Ayn Rand] told an audience of 1,500 people at the  Ford Hall Forum, five years before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973 and in Massachusetts, in  which abortion was then illegal. '*An embryo has no rights. Rights do not  pertain to a potential, only to an actual being*,' [Rand] declared.

On taking government assistance
*Ayn Rand completed all the proofs of personal entitlement and then accepted Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor and not under her literary name*. 

And so now we know a little bit more about the Holden Caulfield of the nutball element.


----------



## Dante

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Did Ayn Rand walk point for the masters of the universe? Or was she a ditzy windbag selling books to immature thinkers to make a living?
> Here are the facts.
> You decide.
> 
> 
> On abortion
> '*Abortion is a moral right--which should be left to the sole discretion  of the woman involved*,' [Ayn Rand] told an audience of 1,500 people at the  Ford Hall Forum, five years before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973 and in Massachusetts, in  which abortion was then illegal. '*An embryo has no rights. Rights do not  pertain to a potential, only to an actual being*,' [Rand] declared."
> 
> On taking government assistance
> *Ayn Rand completed all the proofs of personal entitlement and then accepted Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor and not under her literary name*.
> 
> And so now we know a little bit more about the Holden Caulfield of the nutball element.



This is one of few the times I believe Ayn was 100% correct

On abortion
'*Abortion is a moral right--which should be left to the sole discretion  of the woman involved*,' [Ayn Rand] told an audience of 1,500 people at the  Ford Hall Forum, five years before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973 and in Massachusetts, in  which abortion was then illegal. '*An embryo has no rights. Rights do not  pertain to a potential, only to an actual being*,' [Rand] declared."

Society can disagree. But it has to have an overriding interest. What would that be interest be?


----------



## geauxtohell

Since the first movie flopped so badly, are they going to make a second still?


----------



## Dante

geauxtohell said:


> Since the first movie flopped so badly, are they going to make a second still?



They have the one true faith. Nothing can stop them.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

geauxtohell said:


> Since the first movie flopped so badly, are they going to make a second still?



They already did. It was released last year, right before the election.

It flopped too.


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> Nobody could knock down literary socialist strawmen like Ayn.
> 
> She was a master of creating easy targets for our contempt.
> 
> I remember reading AS in the early 60s and root root rooting for her team, too.
> 
> Of course I was like 14 or so, the ideal age to think like a libertarian.



Then you regressed.

8 is the ideal age to think like a socialist.

Is your daddy Obama gunna take care of you?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthmatters said:


> rand was a crapy writer who hated mankind and though being selfish was a sign of greatness.
> 
> 
> She ended up on SS and died a pauper.
> 
> 
> great hero morons



You failed to successfully read "Green Eggs and Ham." 

Rand is a bit beyond your grasp.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Did Ayn Rand walk point for the masters of the universe? Or was she a ditzy windbag selling books to immature thinkers to make a living?
> Here are the facts.
> You decide.
> 
> 
> On abortion
> '*Abortion is a moral right--which should be left to the sole discretion  of the woman involved*,' [Ayn Rand] told an audience of 1,500 people at the  Ford Hall Forum, five years before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973 and in Massachusetts, in  which abortion was then illegal. '*An embryo has no rights. Rights do not  pertain to a potential, only to an actual being*,' [Rand] declared.
> 
> On taking government assistance
> *Ayn Rand completed all the proofs of personal entitlement and then accepted Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor and not under her literary name*.
> 
> And so now we know a little bit more about the Holden Caulfield of the nutball element.



I understand she once had an automobile accident and had her insurance pay for the repairs.

What a hypocrite, using the insurance she paid for.

You Obmaunists are outraged, OUTRAGED. How dare she collect benefits from the programs she was FORCED to participate in?

Fucktardation is the root cause of leftism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

geauxtohell said:


> Since the first movie flopped so badly, are they going to make a second still?



Leftists, they're just flat out stupid.

Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012) - IMDb


----------



## konradv

washamericom said:


> sorry I took so long, i'm back... did I miss anything ??



Not really, Atlas Shrugged hasn't any better chance of changing society than it did when you first posted about it.


----------



## Truthmatters

I may expose a really gullible crowd of people for their lack of mental power


----------



## Esmeralda

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The Book has been a fool proof indicator  of intelligence. Idiots hate it. Nuff said.



LOL  Actually, it's just the opposite.  It is not a book that is valued by literary scholars or by serious philosophers.  Neither her novel, as a literary work, nor her philosophy are taught at university level because they are not sophisticated examples either artistically or philosophically of what is worthy of university level studies.  I suppose you're going to say that all the intelligent people are actually not at universities:  funny stuff that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthmatters said:


> I may expose a really gullible crowd of people for their lack of mental power




You expose a lack of mental power alright.....


----------



## Esmeralda

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Did Ayn Rand walk point for the masters of the universe? Or was she *a ditzy windbag selling books to immature thinkers to make a living*?
> Here are the facts.
> You decide.
> 
> 
> On abortion
> '*Abortion is a moral right--which should be left to the sole discretion  of the woman involved*,' [Ayn Rand] told an audience of 1,500 people at the  Ford Hall Forum, five years before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973 and in Massachusetts, in  which abortion was then illegal. '*An embryo has no rights. Rights do not  pertain to a potential, only to an actual being*,' [Rand] declared.
> 
> On taking government assistance
> *Ayn Rand completed all the proofs of personal entitlement and then accepted Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor and not under her literary name*.
> 
> And so now we know a little bit more about the Holden Caulfield of the nutball element.



I think she believed in what she wrote, but, obviously, proved herself a hypocrite by taking social security.

Her work appeals to the adolescent mind.  I read it when I was a kid. Don't know exactly when as I was a voracious reader as a child and teenager, but it was long before I was of college age. I was entertained by the novel. Someone has said she wrote a good plot. I imagine that was it for me.  Her philosophy is second or third rate.  Nothing more.


----------



## editec

Hey, if you haven't read_ Altas Shrugged_ I totally suggest that you do.

It has a great plot line.

And while I could complain that it's POV is entirely contrived, what novel doesn't?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Esmeralda said:


> LOL  Actually, it's just the opposite.  It is not a book that is valued by literary scholars or by serious philosophers.



How the fuck would you know? Rachel Maddow told you?

I love the leftists, who walk in and spout partisan sophistry, whilst putting on airs of erudite levels of knowledge. 



> Neither her novel, as a literary work, nor her philosophy are taught at university level



False.

Over 60 U.S. Universities teach the works of Rand.

Ayn Rand Studies on Campus, Courtesy of BB&T : NPR

You simply are an ignorant, partisan hack.



> because they are not sophisticated examples either artistically or philosophically of what is worthy of a university level studies.  I suppose you're going to say that all the intelligent people are actually not at universities:  funny stuff that.



I'm going to say that you are a hack who spews nonsense that you have zero knowledge of in order to serve your shameful party.


----------



## Esmeralda

Uncensored2008 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  Actually, it's just the opposite.  It is not a book that is valued by literary scholars or by serious philosophers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know? Rachel Maddow told you?
> 
> I love the leftists, who walk in and spout partisan sophistry, whilst putting on airs of erudite levels of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither her novel, as a literary work, nor her philosophy are taught at university level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> Over 60 U.S. Universities teach the works of Rand.
> 
> Ayn Rand Studies on Campus, Courtesy of BB&T : NPR
> 
> You simply are an ignorant, partisan hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because they are not sophisticated examples either artistically or philosophically of what is worthy of a university level studies.  I suppose you're going to say that all the intelligent people are actually not at universities:  funny stuff that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to say that you are a hack who spews nonsense that you have zero knowledge of in order to serve your shameful party.
Click to expand...



My opinion of her work has nothing at all to do with politics. I have a master's degree in English literature. My opinion of her work is based on its artistic merits and the depth of its intellectual sophistication. As literature, it is intellectually at the level of adolescence.  As far as philosophy, in the world of serious philosophy, she is considered second or third rate at best.

Not everyone's world is two dimensional: I don't filter everything in my life through a lense that sees only liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat. In fact, doing so is a very limited way of viewing life and it&#8217;s primarily an American trait, not something most of the rest of the world does.  .


----------



## Uncensored2008

Esmeralda said:


> I think she believed in what she wrote, but, obviously, proved herself a hypocrite by taking social security.



I realize that y'all are hacks; mindlessly spewing shit that the hate sites fed you. Still, h*ow the fuck is it hypocritical to take benefits that you fucking paid for?* What is it that has gone so wrong in wiring of the leftist central nervous system (I cannot confirm an actual brain,) that you actually think that argument has merit?



> Her work appeals to the adolescent mind.



ROFL

Dayum, every drone says exactly the same thing, almost as if you're reading a script....



> I read it when I was a kid.



Sure you did.



> Don't know exactly when as I was a voracious reader as a child and teenager, but it was long before I was of college age. I was entertained by the novel. Someone has said she wrote a good plot. I imagine that was it for me.  Her philosophy is second or third rate.  Nothing more.



Right, because you are so brilliant and have a grasp of philosophy that outstrips the pedestrian Bourgeoisie...

Tell you what, since you are so utterly astute, why don't we set up a debate in the CDZ of the merits of Objectivism verses the merits of Material Dialecticalism? I mean, you're a brilliant Obamunist, and I am but a Libertarain rube - what have you to fear?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Esmeralda said:


> It is taught by business teachers, some business teachers.  I don't really consider business studies a discipline of any intellectual depth.



Well, it sure isn't up there with underwater basket weaving and naval contemplation that forms the foundation of a liberal arts education..

But the best and brightest tend toward MBA programs, whilst those who can't hack business or hard science lean toward the mush of liberal arts.



> I was refering to philosophy and literature.  If some business teacher wants to present her capitalistic philosophy in an business class, that's one thing: but teaching her work as literature or philosophy: it isn't done.



ROFL

In other words, the hate sites fed you shit, which you mindlessly regurgitated, now you back peddle.



> My opinion of her work has nothing at all to do with politics. I have a master's degree in English literature.



That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I have an MBA, this is a master's degree with actual worth.

What can one do with an MA in underwater basket weaving? Teach? Oh but you can also, uh, um, I got nothing...

Oh, I can and do teach. But I also am qualified and am, an executive. 



> My opinion of her work is based on it's artistic meriits and the depth of it's intellectual sophistication.  Not everyone's world is two dimensional:



You appear uni-directional. The party says it, you believe it; end of story.



> I don't filter everything in my life through a lense that sees only liberal/conservative, Repubican/Democrat. In fact, doing so is a very limited way of viewing life and its primarily an American trait, not something most of the rest of the world does.



Have you ever held a job outside of academia? Have you ever had to produce something that another person would pay to receive?


----------



## Truthmatters

Ayn Rand is a joke you fools.

she hated SS right up until it was her only income


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthmatters said:


> Ayn Rand is a joke you fools.
> 
> she hated SS right up until it was her only income



You're drooling. You may want one of the attendants to come clean you up.


----------



## Esmeralda

Uncensored2008 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think she believed in what she wrote, but, obviously, proved herself a hypocrite by taking social security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that y'all are hacks; mindlessly spewing shit that the hate sites fed you. Still, h*ow the fuck is it hypocritical to take benefits that you fucking paid for?* What is it that has gone so wrong in wiring of the leftist central nervous system (I cannot confirm an actual brain,) that you actually think that argument has merit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her work appeals to the adolescent mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Dayum, every drone says exactly the same thing, almost as if you're reading a script....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read it when I was a kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know exactly when as I was a voracious reader as a child and teenager, but it was long before I was of college age. I was entertained by the novel. Someone has said she wrote a good plot. I imagine that was it for me.  Her philosophy is second or third rate.  Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because you are so brilliant and have a grasp of philosophy that outstrips the pedestrian Bourgeoisie...
> 
> Tell you what, since you are so utterly astute, why don't we set up a debate in the CDZ of the merits of Objectivism verses the merits of Material Dialecticalism? I mean, you're a brilliant Obamunist, and I am but a Libertarain rube - what have you to fear?
Click to expand...


Yes, I read it as a kid. I grew up in a working class home where no one read and no one gave me any guidance on what to read. So, I started out reading books that had been made into movies, the the old movies we watched on TV on Saturdays.  Her books had been made into movies, and at that time of my life, probably in middle school, I believed that if something had been made into a movie, it was important, so I would read it. I read about ten books a month: I know because that was the limit the library would loan, and I went there once a month because the loan on a book was 30 days.  So, every 30 days I went to the library and checked out a stack of books, returning those from the previous trip.  

I wasn't concerned or even aware of her other works, her philosophy.  I thought the book, the novel, was entertaining, as I said.  I never thought about it much since then, until recent times when it has come up among American conservatives.  I certainly don't have any interest in debating it.  It isn't of any interest to me at all.  You can think it is the Holy Grail if you want; you can verbally abuse me for my opinion on it. I don't care.  You see, you totally miss the point.  I am not discounting her because of politics. I am discounting her because she is a second rate novelist, a second rate philosopher and a second rate thinker.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Esmeralda said:


> Yes, I read it as a kid. I grew up in a working class home where no one read and no one gave me any guidance on what to read.



Sure you did.



> So, I started out reading books that had been made into movies, the the old movies we watched on TV on Saturdays.  Her books had been made into movies, and at that time of my life, probably in middle school, I believed that if something had been made into a movie, it was important, so I would read it. I read about ten books a month: I know because that was the limit the library would loan, and I went there once a month because the loan on a book was 30 days.  So, every 30 days I went to the library and checked out a stack of books, returning those from the previous trip.



But you just happened to pick up a 2,000 page tome on economic philosophy because you knew that someday the party would call on you to trash the vile infidels who dare speak against the glorious programs of our Deal Leader.

You must be prescient.



> I wasn't concerned or even aware of her other works, her philosophy.  I thought the book, the novel, was entertaining, as I said.  I never thought about it much since then, until recent times when it has come up among American conservatives.  I certainly don't have any interest in debating it.



I don't blame you. Your views are assigned by the hate sites. Clearly you have no ability to defend them, nor articulate them.



> It isn't of any interest to me at all.  You can think it is the Holy Grail if you want; you can verbally abuse me for my opinion on it. I don't care.  You see, you totally miss the point.  I am not discounting her because of politics. I am discounting her because she is a second rate novelist, a second rate philosopher and a second rate thinker.



You represent ignorance. You are typical of the left. The hate sites tell you to hate, so you do. You have zero grasp of the subject at hand, and no intellectual curiosity. Ergo you spew demagoguery and ignorance.


----------



## EriktheRed

Uncensored2008 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the first movie flopped so badly, are they going to make a second still?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists, they're just flat out stupid.
> 
> Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012) - IMDb
Click to expand...




It's not our fault it bombed so badly we never heard of it.


----------



## Esmeralda

Uncensored2008 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I read it as a kid. I grew up in a working class home where no one read and no one gave me any guidance on what to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I started out reading books that had been made into movies, the the old movies we watched on TV on Saturdays.  Her books had been made into movies, and at that time of my life, probably in middle school, I believed that if something had been made into a movie, it was important, so I would read it. I read about ten books a month: I know because that was the limit the library would loan, and I went there once a month because the loan on a book was 30 days.  So, every 30 days I went to the library and checked out a stack of books, returning those from the previous trip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because you knew that someday the party would call on you to trash the vile infidels who dare speak against the glorious programs of our Deal Leader.
> 
> You must be prescient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't concerned or even aware of her other works, her philosophy.  I thought the book, the novel, was entertaining, as I said.  I never thought about it much since then, until recent times when it has come up among American conservatives.  I certainly don't have any interest in debating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't blame you. Your views are assigned by the hate sites. Clearly you have no ability to defend them, nor articulate them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't of any interest to me at all.  You can think it is the Holy Grail if you want; you can verbally abuse me for my opinion on it. I don't care.  You see, you totally miss the point.  I am not discounting her because of politics. I am discounting her because she is a second rate novelist, a second rate philosopher and a second rate thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You represent ignorance. You are typical of the left. The hate sites tell you to hate, so you do. You have zero grasp of the subject at hand, and no intellectual curiosity. Ergo you spew demagoguery and ignorance.
Click to expand...


A couple of years ago, when I was involved in the study of epistemology, and I  had read something about her philosophy, as it has been brought up, as I said, by Americans lately, I read a basic outline of what her philosophical ideas are.  I thought them very superficial.  I'm not spewing any hate. I had enough intellectual curiosity to check her out.  I think it's quite ironic that you accuse me of demagoguery and ignorance.  Quite ironic.  I know one thing; in my daily life, I would never waste any time in an attempt to discuss anything on any intellectual level with someone with a mind like yours.  It's impossible to get any sense out of someone like you.  The hate is yours.  The ignorance is yours. The demagoguery is yours.  And you are the one who is brainwashed by hate sites.  I don't read any hate sites.  I don't watch any of the American news programs that discuss political ideas.  I get my information from a variety of international news sources and do not watch 'discussion' programs at all.  Everything you accuse me of is projection.  You are projecting onto me what you yourself are.

"But you just happened to pick up a 2,000 page tome on economic philosophy..."  _Atlas Shrugged _ is about 1,000 pages long, and, yes I read that and many others of that length.  People like me are the type who end up getting master's degrees in English literature: we are readers, serious readers of literature. (I also read _Anna Karenina, War and Peace, Crime and Punishment_, and the like...they had all been made into movies, you see, lol.)  I read Atlas Shrugged as a novel and enjoyed the 'story,' the plot. That's about it, and that is all I have claimed.  And though I have repeated twice now that my opinion of the novel does not have anything to do with politics, you, having only a one track mind, cannot seem to grasp that.


----------



## Wry Catcher

cutter said:


> I love the book and am now reading it again. I hope the message of the book comes through and is not hijacked by the liberal left that seems to be too prominent in Hollywood. Next to the bible I think this is the best book ever written.



I think you need to widen your experience:

100 Best Novels « Modern Library


----------



## Uncensored2008

EriktheRed said:


> It's not our fault it bombed so badly we never heard of it.



It's your fault that you are ignorant baboons who let hate sites do your thinking for you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Esmeralda said:


> A couple of years ago, when I was involved in the study of epistemology, and I  had read something about her philosophy, as it has been brought up, as I said, by Americans lately, I read a basic outline of what her philosophical ideas are.  I thought them very superficial.  I'm not spewing any hate. I had enough intellectual curiosity to check her out.



Right...



> I think it's quite ironic that you accuse me of demagoguery and ignorance.



I only bring it because you promote demagoguery and ignorance. The closed mind of the left, that reacts violently to that which challenges dogma.



> Quite ironic.  I know one thing, in my daily life, I would never waste any time in an attempt to discuss anything on any intellectual level with someone with a mind like yours.



You lack the intellect to discuss anything at all. You have the capacity to recite dogma. But should a challenge arise, you are incapable of defending said dogma and can only hurl inarticulate epithets. Leftist academia, those with the closed mind and inability to logically examine any subject.



> It's impossible to get any sense out of someone like you.  The hate is yours.



Of course it is. After all, I challenged you to support your dogma.



> The ignorance is yours. The demogoguery is yours.  And you are the one who is brainwashed by hate sites.  I don't read any hate sites.



Sure you don't. You spend no time on Thinkprogress, Huffingpo, DemocraticUnderground, DailyKOS, et al.



> I don't watch any of the American news programs that discuss political ideas.  I get my information from a variety of international news sources and do not watch 'discussion' programs at all.  Everything you accuse me of is projection.  You are projecting onto me what you yourself are.



So, you are very careful to remain ignorant of the subjects you speak of?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> cutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the book and am now reading it again. I hope the message of the book comes through and is not hijacked by the liberal left that seems to be too prominent in Hollywood. Next to the bible I think this is the best book ever written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to widen your experience:
> 
> 100 Best Novels « Modern Library
Click to expand...


Some excellent books on that list. A few, such as "Battlefield Earth" and "Lord of the Flies" baffle me; but for the most part these are novels that people should read.


----------



## EriktheRed

Uncensored2008 said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not our fault it bombed so badly we never heard of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's your fault that you are ignorant baboons who let hate sites do your thinking for you.
Click to expand...


You mean like the Louisiana newspaper's site I linked to not too long ago?


----------



## Uncensored2008

EriktheRed said:


> You mean like the Louisiana newspaper's site I linked to not too long ago?



Ma and Pa Kettle's blog? Don't forget to pray for the Johnson's mule....


----------



## EriktheRed

Uncensored2008 said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the Louisiana newspaper's site I linked to not too long ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ma and Pa Kettle's blog? Don't forget to pray for the Johnson's mule....
Click to expand...


Kinda thought you'd say something like that.

Sux to be proven wrong, eh?


----------



## Uncensored2008

EriktheRed said:


> Kinda thought you'd say something like that.
> 
> Sux to be proven wrong, eh?



I really wouldn't know....


----------



## editec

You know I have the suspicion that more so called liberals on this board actually read that tome than the CONS who are here trying to defend its merits.

Much like Esmeralda, I was a voracious reader and probably around 1964 or 65 I picked  Atlas Shrugged off the book rack because

1. It was really big, ergo a better buy for my  money

2. It has a neat cover that looked interesting

Today were I asked to edit the thing, I'd keep the entire plot, but I'd cut back on the polemics by about 90%.

Anyone interested in today's political world OUGHT to read this book.

_ESPECIALLY_ if you lean to the left.

Every flawed argument, and every specious character assassination of the left that we hear from today's NEOCONS, can be found in that book.


----------



## Esmeralda

washamericom said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> a single book is going to change american politics?  that sounds amazing!  When did this book come out?
> 
> Oh, wait..
> 
> 1957?
> 
> Maybe it will be a delayed reaction........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's a real thick book though man...
Click to expand...


lol


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> You know I have the suspicion that more so called liberals on this board actually read that tome than the CONS who are here trying to defend its merits.



I doubt it.

People like Esmeralda read a critique by Howard Zinn or other communist, adopt the opinion they are fed, then claim to have read it.



> Much like Esmeralda, I was a voracious reader and probably around 1964 or 65 I picked  Atlas Shrugged off the book rack because
> 
> 1. It was really big, ergo a better buy for my  money
> 
> 2. It has a neat cover that looked interesting
> 
> Today were I asked to edit the thing, I'd keep the entire plot, but I'd cut back on the polemics by about 90%.
> 
> Anyone interested in today's political world OUGHT to read this book.
> 
> _ESPECIALLY_ if you lean to the left.
> 
> Every flawed argument, and every specious character assassination of the left that we hear from today's NEOCONS, can be found in that book.



Esmeralda is an intellectual dwarf. I will repeat the challenge that I made to her; Debate in the CDZ, I support Objectivism, you support Material Dialecticalism. You may balk and claim you're not a Marxist, but I'm not an Objectivist either. 

You game?


----------



## bodecea

editec said:


> You know I have the suspicion that more so called liberals on this board actually read that tome than the CONS who are here trying to defend its merits.
> 
> Much like Esmeralda, I was a voracious reader and probably around 1964 or 65 I picked  Atlas Shrugged off the book rack because
> 
> 1. It was really big, ergo a better buy for my  money
> 
> 2. It has a neat cover that looked interesting
> 
> Today were I asked to edit the thing, I'd keep the entire plot, but I'd cut back on the polemics by about 90%.
> 
> Anyone interested in today's political world OUGHT to read this book.
> 
> _ESPECIALLY_ if you lean to the left.
> 
> Every flawed argument, and every specious character assassination of the left that we hear from today's NEOCONS, can be found in that book.



Read it...and The Fountainhead...a long time ago.


----------



## Truthmatters

its trash.

how anyone could be drawn in by her stupidity is amazing to me


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthmatters said:


> its trash.
> 
> how anyone could be drawn in by her stupidity is amazing to me



Seriously, you couldn't get through "Green Eggs and Ham" with a modicum of comprehension. Rand is WAYYYYY beyond your intellectual level.


----------



## mamooth

"This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force." -- Dorothy Parker

That actually doesn't refer to Atlas Shrugs, though it's often incorrectly attributed to that novel.

Now this quote:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

should be attributed to John Rogers. The original is still up on the 2009 blog page, Kung Fu Monkey.
Kung Fu Monkey: Ephemera 2009 (7)

It has been fun looking back through the cult ravings of the objectivists here. They were so sure the movie would be a massive blockbuster and lead to President Obama's crushing election defeat. And when that didn't happen, something seemed to snap in their little cultist minds.

Good news, part 3 is supposedly going to be made!

Atlas Shrugged Part 3 Greenlit; Photography Begins Fall 2013 | The Atlas Society

Maybe this time will do the trick! It will catch fire across the nation, and those dirty liberals will be dooooooooooooomed, I tell ya!


----------



## Toro

Was the goal to make America even more liberal?

Because, if so, good job!


----------



## editec

Uncensored2008 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I have the suspicion that more so called liberals on this board actually read that tome than the CONS who are here trying to defend its merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> People like Esmeralda read a critique by Howard Zinn or other communist, adopt the opinion they are fed, then claim to have read it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Esmeralda, I was a voracious reader and probably around 1964 or 65 I picked  Atlas Shrugged off the book rack because
> 
> 1. It was really big, ergo a better buy for my  money
> 
> 2. It has a neat cover that looked interesting
> 
> Today were I asked to edit the thing, I'd keep the entire plot, but I'd cut back on the polemics by about 90%.
> 
> Anyone interested in today's political world OUGHT to read this book.
> 
> _ESPECIALLY_ if you lean to the left.
> 
> Every flawed argument, and every specious character assassination of the left that we hear from today's NEOCONS, can be found in that book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Esmeralda is an intellectual dwarf. I will repeat the challenge that I made to her; Debate in the CDZ, I support Objectivism, you support Material Dialecticalism. You may balk and claim you're not a Marxist, but I'm not an Objectivist either.
> 
> You game?
Click to expand...



I'm game, Uncensored.

If you want to start a thread to discuss the merits of Objectivism or any of the various offshoots of Randian thinking, I'll be only too happy to play.

AS I am STILL waiting for DAS Kaspital to be publised in CLASSIC COMIC format, I cannot guarantee that I can be a Marxian foil.

But I can assure you that I am the world's leading expert in Editecian Political theory so perhaps a good time can had by all, eh?

Let's play, dude.

You start the thread, I'll be there


----------



## Uncensored2008

Toro said:


> Was the goal to make America even more liberal?
> 
> Because, if so, good job!



America is far more market driven, even today, than it was in 1959. 

The radical left policies of Obama mirror those of FDR.


----------



## konradv

bodecea said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I have the suspicion that more so called liberals on this board actually read that tome than the CONS who are here trying to defend its merits.
> 
> Much like Esmeralda, I was a voracious reader and probably around 1964 or 65 I picked  Atlas Shrugged off the book rack because
> 
> 1. It was really big, ergo a better buy for my  money
> 
> 2. It has a neat cover that looked interesting
> 
> Today were I asked to edit the thing, I'd keep the entire plot, but I'd cut back on the polemics by about 90%.
> 
> Anyone interested in today's political world OUGHT to read this book.
> 
> _ESPECIALLY_ if you lean to the left.
> 
> Every flawed argument, and every specious character assassination of the left that we hear from today's NEOCONS, can be found in that book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read it...and The Fountainhead...a long time ago.
Click to expand...


Read them both, also.  _The Fountainhead_ wasn't a bad read, even if I did think the protagonist was a selfish asshole.  _Atlas Shrugged_ on the other hand was total trash and a monumental waste of time.  Take it from the experts which was a better piece of literature.  _The Fountainhead_ was made into a movie in 1949, while for the next 60 years no one wanted to touch _Atlas Shrugged_.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> Read them both, also.  _The Fountainhead_ wasn't a bad read, even if I did think the protagonist was a selfish asshole.  _Atlas Shrugged_ on the other hand was total trash and a monumental waste of time.  Take it from the experts which was a better piece of literature.  _The Fountainhead_ was made into a movie in 1949, while for the next 60 years no one wanted to touch _Atlas Shrugged_.



You're an idiot, which is why you're a leftist.

Dozens of producers begged for the rights to Atlas.

Albert S. Ruddy (Academy Award winner, Godfather I and II) bought the rights. But Rand was so inflexible that he could never actually make the film.

Your fiction works better as fodder for the hate sites, but as is the case with most of what you post, it simply isn't true.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read them both, also.  _The Fountainhead_ wasn't a bad read, even if I did think the protagonist was a selfish asshole.  _Atlas Shrugged_ on the other hand was total trash and a monumental waste of time.  Take it from the experts which was a better piece of literature.  _The Fountainhead_ was made into a movie in 1949, while for the next 60 years no one wanted to touch _Atlas Shrugged_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot, which is why you're a leftist.
> 
> Dozens of producers begged for the rights to Atlas.
> 
> Albert S. Ruddy (Academy Award winner, Godfather I and II) bought the rights. But Rand was so inflexible that he could never actually make the film.
> 
> Your fiction works better as fodder for the hate sites, but as is the case with most of what you post, it simply isn't true.
Click to expand...


Rand wouldn't let anyone make _Atlas_ into a movie unless they included Galt's entire speech (all 2.5 hours of it) word for word - which is why no one made it into a movie while she was alive.


----------



## jasonnfree

Ayn Rand went against her principles when it came to applying for social security and medicare...  You're not automatically put on those programs that she despised so much,  you have to apply.  Same for Paul Ryan.  He's been going against "Randian" loony philosophy his whole life.   Taking survivors social security even though he didn't need it.  He's been a government employee his whole life and gets first class health care.  Those two hypocrites proved they couldn't make it on their own without government help.  Obama ought to bring this up in speeches.  McConnel, Boner, Ryan,  the 2 Paul loonies, father and son,   all standing in line waiting for government money every pay check including waiting for their cadillac retirement.

I read "Atlas Shrugged" in the 60's..   Really mediocre stuff.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jasonnfree said:


> Ayn Rand went against her principles when it came to applying for social security and medicare...



False.

This is one of the meme from the hate sites. But not only is it false, it's stupid.

I object to McDonalds having some clown hold a gun to my head and force me to buy a big mac.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite for eating the burger I bought.


----------



## jasonnfree

Uncensored2008 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody could knock down literary socialist strawmen like Ayn.
> 
> She was a master of creating easy targets for our contempt.
> 
> I remember reading AS in the early 60s and root root rooting for her team, too.
> 
> Of course I was like 14 or so, the ideal age to think like a libertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you regressed.
> 
> 8 is the ideal age to think like a socialist.
> 
> Is your daddy Obama gunna take care of you?
Click to expand...


Sure, daddy Obama of yesteryear took care of Ayn Rand when the great free market wasn't working for her. She broke down and applied for Social Security and Medicare.  Government at work.  Works better for ordinary people than libertarianism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jasonnfree said:


> Sure, daddy Obama of yesteryear took care of Ayn Rand when the great free market wasn't working for her. She broke down and applied for Social Security and Medicare.  Government at work.  Works better for ordinary people than libertarianism.



When they train you drones, do they give you treats, like training a dog? I mean, not that you drones have the intellectual capacity of a dog, but is it similar? Or is it pheromones? I kind of envision you of the hate sites like a colony of termites. Mindlessly spewing idiocy based on scents emitted by the queen - who would be Barry....


----------



## Political Junky

Uncensored2008 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, daddy Obama of yesteryear took care of Ayn Rand when the great free market wasn't working for her. She broke down and applied for Social Security and Medicare.  Government at work.  Works better for ordinary people than libertarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they train you drones, do they give you treats, like training a dog? I mean, not that you drones have the intellectual capacity of a dog, but is it similar? Or is it pheromones? I kind of envision you of the hate sites like a colony of termites. Mindlessly spewing idiocy based on scents emitted by the queen - who would be Barry....
Click to expand...

Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[87] In 1976 she retired from writing her newsletter and, *despite her initial objections, was persuaded to allow Evva Pryor, a consultant from her attorney's office, to sign her up for Social Security and Medicare*.[88] During the late 1970s her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.[89]
Ayn Rand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Uncensored2008

Political Junky said:


> Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[87] In 1976 she retired from writing her newsletter and, *despite her initial objections, was persuaded to allow Evva Pryor, a consultant from her attorney's office, to sign her up for Social Security and Medicare*.[88] During the late 1970s her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.[89]
> Ayn Rand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I object to McDonalds having some clown hold a gun to my head and force me to buy a big mac.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite for eating the burger I bought.


----------



## Immanuel

Esmeralda said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book has been a fool proof indicator  of intelligence. Idiots hate it. Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  Actually, it's just the opposite.  It is not a book that is valued by literary scholars or by serious philosophers.  Neither her novel, as a literary work, nor her philosophy are taught at university level because they are not sophisticated examples either artistically or philosophically of what is worthy of university level studies.  I suppose you're going to say that all the intelligent people are actually not at universities:  funny stuff that.
Click to expand...


You mean her writing wasn't liberal enough for the universities?

Immie


----------



## Esmeralda

Immanuel said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book has been a fool proof indicator  of intelligence. Idiots hate it. Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  Actually, it's just the opposite.  It is not a book that is valued by literary scholars or by serious philosophers.  Neither her novel, as a literary work, nor her philosophy are taught at university level because they are not sophisticated examples either artistically or philosophically of what is worthy of university level studies.  I suppose you're going to say that all the intelligent people are actually not at universities:  funny stuff that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean her writing wasn't liberal enough for the universities?
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


No.  It has nothing to do with politics.  The limitations of a mind that thinks only in those terms is one reason why  you might admire her work and why her work is not  generally admired by scholars.  Her novels do not have strong literary merit.  Literary merit is a combination of style and meaning.  It is artistic merit.  A painting with artistic merit has levels and complexity of meaning, it is also painted with great style and technique.  Literature is also art.  Rand's fiction has simplistic meaning, only one level essentially, and her style is pedestrian.  None of this has to do with her point of view on social, political or economic issues.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%*

Harry Binswanger, Contributor -  9/17/2013
I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

...

Well, maybe there isin the other direction. The shoe is on the other foot. It is the community that should give back to the wealth-creators. It turns out that the 99% get far more benefit from the 1% than vice-versa. Ayn Rand developed the idea of the pyramid of ability, which John Galt sets forth in Atlas Shrugged:

_When you live in a rational society, where men are free to trade, you receive an incalculable bonus: the material value of your work is determined not only by your effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the world around you.

When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making . . .

In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the competition between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of exploitation for which you have damned the strong._

For their enormous contributions to our standard of living, the high-earners should be thanked and publicly honored. We are in their debt.

Heres a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes. Yes, its too little. And the real issue is not financial, but moral. So to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the years top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Imagine the effect on our culture, particularly on the young, if the kind of fame and adulation bathing Lady Gaga attached to the more notable achievements of say, Warren Buffett. Or if the moral praise showered on Mother Teresa went to someone like Lloyd Blankfein, who, in guiding Goldman Sachs toward billions in profits, has done infinitely more for mankind. (Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created.)

Instead, we live in a culture where Goldman Sachs is smeared as a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity. Thats for the sin of successful investing, channeling savings to their most productive uses, instead of wasting them on government boondoggles like Solyndra and bridges to nowhere.

There is indeed a vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity: the Internal Revenue Service. And, at a deeper level, it is the monstrous perversion of justice that makes the IRS possible: an envy-ridden moral code that damns success, profit, and earning money in voluntary exchange.

An end must be put to the inhuman practice of draining the productive to subsidize the unproductive. An end must be put to the primordial notion that ones life belongs to the tribe, to the community, and that the superlative wealth-creators must do penance for the sin of creating value.

And Ayn Rand is just the lady who can do it.

Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1% - Forbes


----------



## Politico

Holy resurrection of a meaningless thread about something that is not going to happen Batman!


----------



## JoeB131

cutter said:


> I love the book and am now reading it again. I hope the message of the book comes through and is not hijacked by the liberal left that seems to be too prominent in Hollywood. Next to the bible I think this is the best book ever written.



Don't worry, they made it every bit as tedious as Ayn Rand wrote it... 

Which is why it DIED in the theatres...


----------



## JoeB131

Uncensored2008 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[87] In 1976 she retired from writing her newsletter and, *despite her initial objections, was persuaded to allow Evva Pryor, a consultant from her attorney's office, to sign her up for Social Security and Medicare*.[88] During the late 1970s her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.[89]
> Ayn Rand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I object to McDonalds having some clown hold a gun to my head and force me to buy a big mac.
> 
> That doesn't make me a hypocrite for eating the burger I bought.
Click to expand...


Wow, what a silly analogy...


----------



## JoeB131

&#8220;Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old&#8217;s life: _The Lord of the Rings _and _Atlas Shrugged_. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.&#8221;


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> Don't worry, they made it every bit as tedious as Ayn Rand wrote it...
> 
> Which is why it DIED in the theatres...



Much to the tears of you Marxists, both of the first two films have found moderate success on Netflix. Both have recouped production costs and turned a profit. Pt. 3 is complete and will be in theaters in August. It will do poorly in theaters, as the first two did, then go to DVD and Netflix, to again find a moderate level of success.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year olds life: _The Lord of the Rings _and _Atlas Shrugged_. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.



Both are lightyears beyond the intellectual grasp of leftists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sigh.  No, the OP failed.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, they made it every bit as tedious as Ayn Rand wrote it...
> 
> Which is why it DIED in the theatres...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much to the tears of you Marxists, both of the first two films have found moderate success on Netflix. Both have recouped production costs and turned a profit. Pt. 3 is complete and will be in theaters in August. It will do poorly in theaters, as the first two did, then go to DVD and Netflix, to again find a moderate level of success.
Click to expand...


Neither Part I nor Part II recouped their production costs, neither came close to making a profit, and Part III managed to somehow do worse than either of the previous two.

I question where you're getting your information from.

I bump this thread only because I hadn't even realized that Part III had even been released until looking at year-end lists.

How'd it do on "changing the face of American politics"?


----------



## bripat9643

theDoctorisIn said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, they made it every bit as tedious as Ayn Rand wrote it...
> 
> Which is why it DIED in the theatres...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much to the tears of you Marxists, both of the first two films have found moderate success on Netflix. Both have recouped production costs and turned a profit. Pt. 3 is complete and will be in theaters in August. It will do poorly in theaters, as the first two did, then go to DVD and Netflix, to again find a moderate level of success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither Part I nor Part II recouped their production costs, neither came close to making a profit, and Part III managed to somehow do worse than either of the previous two.
> 
> I question where you're getting your information from.
> 
> I bump this thread only because I hadn't even realized that Part III had even been released until looking at year-end lists.
> 
> How'd it do on "changing the face of American politics"?
Click to expand...


Part III hasn't even been released yet, so you're obviously just making shit up.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

bripat9643 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, they made it every bit as tedious as Ayn Rand wrote it...
> 
> Which is why it DIED in the theatres...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much to the tears of you Marxists, both of the first two films have found moderate success on Netflix. Both have recouped production costs and turned a profit. Pt. 3 is complete and will be in theaters in August. It will do poorly in theaters, as the first two did, then go to DVD and Netflix, to again find a moderate level of success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither Part I nor Part II recouped their production costs, neither came close to making a profit, and Part III managed to somehow do worse than either of the previous two.
> 
> I question where you're getting your information from.
> 
> I bump this thread only because I hadn't even realized that Part III had even been released until looking at year-end lists.
> 
> How'd it do on "changing the face of American politics"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part III hasn't even been released yet, so you're obviously just making shit up.
Click to expand...




See what I mean? It made such a little impact that even you didn't know it had come out.

It came out on Sept. 12th...

Atlas Shrugged Who Is John Galt 2014 - IMDb


----------



## mamooth

So did part 3 glorify John Galt for killing billions of people by deliberately causing the collapse of civilization, all just because he wanted to make a philosophical point?

Normal humans define John Galt as a genocidal monster. Randians, OTOH, tend to look at him as a messiah figure. Apparently, any degree of killing is justifiable to a Randian, so long as it serves the glory of the cult.


----------



## Dante

just a little snippet:

_"Who is John Goat?" _Dallas turned away from the window and looked at the man in the seat beside her. He had got on at one of the stops outside New York City but she had not noticed him before now. He had a bald head that seemed to rest like an unused bowling ball atop a pillow of fat that had once been a neck. His eyes were pale and lifeless. 

"Pardon me?" 

_"Who is John Goat?"_"I don't know. Besides, those words are just meaningless nonsense."

The man nodded dully. His nod seemed to reject the possibility of objective knowledge. Dallas turned back to the window and gazed out on the vast blank prairies. A lighted billboard flickered and her heart trembled with joy. She remember her thrill when, long ago, she first heard a radio commercial. Her brother had told her that bird songs were prettier but Francisco had laughed and said, "When I grow up I will make birds out of copper and sell them for money!" And the next day he had presented her with his first copper bird made from metal he had mined with his own hands.

"Does it know any songs," she had asked.

_"Only radio commercials."_And, then, they had made love.

_"Pardon me Miss."_ It was the bald man.

"Yes."

_"My name is Waldo Mudge. What's yours?"_"Stank. Dallas Stank."

_"Stank! The same Stank who runs the railroad?"_"Yes!" Dallas proudly threw back her head.

_"You loathsome capitalist, I hate you! I abhor you! Don't look at me that way; you have no right! I give all my blood to the poor! Organs, too, when I have the chance. All I have left are three ribs and a testicle. Stop looking at me like that! I live for others, for love...something YOU would never understand!" _He sneered hysterically.

"You're right, I wouldn't," she said. 

She turned back to the window. Suddenly, she felt a rush of air go past her head. She turned around and gasped. Waldo Mudge had deflated.

An anonymous tribute to Ayn Rand through parody - WendyMcElroy.com

and great resource: Parodies and Humor about Ayn Rand and Objectivism​


----------



## Discombobulated

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> 
> it looks good, no, great.



If that shit changed your life for the better then your life must have been a very sad and pointless one.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

theDoctorisIn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, they made it every bit as tedious as Ayn Rand wrote it...
> 
> Which is why it DIED in the theatres...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much to the tears of you Marxists, both of the first two films have found moderate success on Netflix. Both have recouped production costs and turned a profit. Pt. 3 is complete and will be in theaters in August. It will do poorly in theaters, as the first two did, then go to DVD and Netflix, to again find a moderate level of success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither Part I nor Part II recouped their production costs, neither came close to making a profit, and Part III managed to somehow do worse than either of the previous two.
> 
> I question where you're getting your information from.
> 
> I bump this thread only because I hadn't even realized that Part III had even been released until looking at year-end lists.
> 
> How'd it do on "changing the face of American politics"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part III hasn't even been released yet, so you're obviously just making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean? It made such a little impact that even you didn't know it had come out.
> 
> It came out on Sept. 12th...
> 
> Atlas Shrugged Who Is John Galt 2014 - IMDb
Click to expand...


Gee, I missed that completely.

I do remember reading her books in junior high but then I grew up.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Luddly Neddite said:


> Gee, I missed that completely.
> 
> I do remember reading her books in junior high but then I grew up.



Pillowbite, you wouldn't have successfully completed "Green Eggs and Ham" in Jr. High. You would have ZERO chance of comprehending the vocabulary used in Atlas even today.


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I missed that completely.
> 
> I do remember reading her books in junior high but then I grew up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pillowbite, you wouldn't have successfully completed "Green Eggs and Ham" in Jr. High. You would have ZERO chance of comprehending the vocabulary used in Atlas even today.
Click to expand...

 

Ayn Rand's writing style is a joke  ... Her vocabulary?


----------



## bripat9643

mamooth said:


> So did part 3 glorify John Galt for killing billions of people by deliberately causing the collapse of civilization, all just because he wanted to make a philosophical point?
> 
> Normal humans define John Galt as a genocidal monster. Randians, OTOH, tend to look at him as a messiah figure. Apparently, any degree of killing is justifiable to a Randian, so long as it serves the glory of the cult.



Sorry to disabuse you of your delusions, but John Galt didn't kill a single person.  It takes some commie fascist lib to call declining to save people from themselves as "killing them."  That's a truly servile state of mind.  Society doesn't own John Galt or any of the other characters in the book.  It isn't entitled to a single thing from them.  That's what boot-licking toads like you fail to understand.  It's the whole point of the book.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I missed that completely.
> 
> I do remember reading her books in junior high but then I grew up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pillowbite, you wouldn't have successfully completed "Green Eggs and Ham" in Jr. High. You would have ZERO chance of comprehending the vocabulary used in Atlas even today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's writing style is a joke  ... Her vocabulary?
Click to expand...


And your support for this claim is?  Her vocabulary is obviously about 5 time the size of yours.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did part 3 glorify John Galt for killing billions of people by deliberately causing the collapse of civilization, all just because he wanted to make a philosophical point?
> 
> Normal humans define John Galt as a genocidal monster. Randians, OTOH, tend to look at him as a messiah figure. Apparently, any degree of killing is justifiable to a Randian, so long as it serves the glory of the cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disabuse you of your delusions, but John Galt didn't kill a single person.  It takes some commie fascist lib to call declining to save people from themselves as "killing them."  That's a truly servile state of mind.  Society doesn't own John Galt or any of the other characters in the book.  It isn't entitled to a single thing from them.  That's what boot-licking toads like you fail to understand.  It's the whole point of the book.
Click to expand...

IT'S A FANTASY NOVEL!!!!


THERE IS NO JOHN GALT  _John Galt_ is a character in an Ayn Rand Novel


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did part 3 glorify John Galt for killing billions of people by deliberately causing the collapse of civilization, all just because he wanted to make a philosophical point?
> 
> Normal humans define John Galt as a genocidal monster. Randians, OTOH, tend to look at him as a messiah figure. Apparently, any degree of killing is justifiable to a Randian, so long as it serves the glory of the cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disabuse you of your delusions, but John Galt didn't kill a single person.  It takes some commie fascist lib to call declining to save people from themselves as "killing them."  That's a truly servile state of mind.  Society doesn't own John Galt or any of the other characters in the book.  It isn't entitled to a single thing from them.  That's what boot-licking toads like you fail to understand.  It's the whole point of the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IT'S A FANTASY NOVEL!!!!
> 
> 
> THERE IS NO JOHN GALT  _John Galt_ is a character in an Ayn Rand Novel
Click to expand...


Then why are you accusing him of genocide?


----------



## Vandalshandle

I have read worse books, but I honestly do not remember the titles. Wait! Stephen King's "Cell" was every bit as bad at "Atlas"!


----------



## bripat9643

Vandalshandle said:


> I have read worse books, but I honestly do not remember the titles. Wait! Stephen King's "Cell" was every bit as bad at "Atlas"!



Yeah, I'm sure any book that doesn't kow-tow to the liberal self-immolation theory of morality is "bad" from your perspective.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I missed that completely.
> 
> I do remember reading her books in junior high but then I grew up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pillowbite, you wouldn't have successfully completed "Green Eggs and Ham" in Jr. High. You would have ZERO chance of comprehending the vocabulary used in Atlas even today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's writing style is a joke  ... Her vocabulary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your support for this claim is?  Her vocabulary is obviously about 5 time the size of yours.
Click to expand...


Listening to her affectations and her crazy i_mmigrant from a totalitarian regime_ rants is enough to push any sane person into fits of seizure. Reading her books is entertaining when taken for what they are --- fantasy.

Anyone who advocates Rand's writings as a philosophy is almost always exposing their own arrested emotional and intellectual development

Rand was a crazy immigrant who never recovered from her nightmares


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did part 3 glorify John Galt for killing billions of people by deliberately causing the collapse of civilization, all just because he wanted to make a philosophical point?
> 
> Normal humans define John Galt as a genocidal monster. Randians, OTOH, tend to look at him as a messiah figure. Apparently, any degree of killing is justifiable to a Randian, so long as it serves the glory of the cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disabuse you of your delusions, but John Galt didn't kill a single person.  It takes some commie fascist lib to call declining to save people from themselves as "killing them."  That's a truly servile state of mind.  Society doesn't own John Galt or any of the other characters in the book.  It isn't entitled to a single thing from them.  That's what boot-licking toads like you fail to understand.  It's the whole point of the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IT'S A FANTASY NOVEL!!!!
> 
> 
> THERE IS NO JOHN GALT  _John Galt_ is a character in an Ayn Rand Novel
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are you accusing him of genocide?
Click to expand...

Huh?

Genocide? you confused posters


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I missed that completely.
> 
> I do remember reading her books in junior high but then I grew up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pillowbite, you wouldn't have successfully completed "Green Eggs and Ham" in Jr. High. You would have ZERO chance of comprehending the vocabulary used in Atlas even today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's writing style is a joke  ... Her vocabulary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your support for this claim is?  Her vocabulary is obviously about 5 time the size of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listening to her affectations and her crazy i_mmigrant from a totalitarian regime_ rants is enough to push any sane person into fits of seizure. Reading her books is entertaining when taken for what they are --- fantasy.
> 
> Anyone who advocates Rand's writings as a philosophy is almost always exposing their own arrested emotional and intellectual development
> 
> Rand was a crazy immigrant who never recovered from her nightmares
Click to expand...


Of course, that's pure opinion driven by a viral hatred of freedom.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Wait! I just remembered that "Johnathan Livingston Seagull" was even WORSE that "Atlas"!


----------



## bripat9643

Vandalshandle said:


> Wait! I just remembered that "Johnathan Livingston Seagull was even WORSE that "Atlas"!



I just remembered that you're a dumbass who thinks your opinions are worth something.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> Ayn Rand's writing style is a joke  ... Her vocabulary?



The chance of Pillowbite knowing the word "superlative" is less than zero, as you know. 

I find it pathetic that the left cannot debate the ideas presented, and instead take this tack. Clearly Pillowbite is just reciting memes he memorized on the hate sites, this is one that floats around a lot, with folks who have an IQ of 85 thinking they are really clever for reciting it. 

It shows the weakness of collectivists that you must stoop to such idiocy. Pillowbit is one of the dumber people on the board - you are not. I doubt Pillowbite has ever read a book in his life, anything beyond a hate script on DailKOS is beyond his attention span. But YOU know what you claim is false, and thus expose the weakness of the ideas you promote.


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's writing style is a joke  ... Her vocabulary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chance of Pillowbite knowing the word "superlative" is less than zero, as you know.
> 
> I find it pathetic that the left cannot debate the ideas presented, and instead take this tack. Clearly Pillowbite is just reciting memes he memorized on the hate sites, this is one that floats around a lot, with folks who have an IQ of 85 thinking they are really clever for reciting it.
> 
> It shows the weakness of collectivists that you must stoop to such idiocy. Pillowbit is one of the dumber people on the board - you are not. I doubt Pillowbite has ever read a book in his life, anything beyond a hate script on DailKOS is beyond his attention span. But YOU know what you claim is false, and thus expose the weakness of the ideas you promote.
Click to expand...


Yep, the people who attack Rand's writing can never explain what's wrong with it - not with examples, at least.  It's the same meme regurgitated over and over.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> Wait! I just remembered that "Johnathan Livingston Seagull was even WORSE that "Atlas"!



"Atlas Shrugged" is about 1500 pages. That would be 1490 pages more than the longest book you have ever successfully read.

Try again.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I missed that completely.
> 
> I do remember reading her books in junior high but then I grew up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pillowbite, you wouldn't have successfully completed "Green Eggs and Ham" in Jr. High. You would have ZERO chance of comprehending the vocabulary used in Atlas even today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's writing style is a joke  ... Her vocabulary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your support for this claim is?  Her vocabulary is obviously about 5 time the size of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listening to her affectations and her crazy i_mmigrant from a totalitarian regime_ rants is enough to push any sane person into fits of seizure. Reading her books is entertaining when taken for what they are --- fantasy.
> 
> Anyone who advocates Rand's writings as a philosophy is almost always exposing their own arrested emotional and intellectual development
> 
> Rand was a crazy immigrant who never recovered from her nightmares
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, that's pure opinion driven by a viral hatred of freedom.
Click to expand...

Why do crazy people always think they know what FREEDOM is?


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> Yep, the people who attack Rand's writing can never explain what's wrong with it - not with examples, at least.  It's the same meme regurgitated over and over.



What's funny is that I reread Atlas over Christmas break, and have quite a few criticisms, but what Dainty and Pillowbite claim is just stupid, clearly demonstrating that the speaker never read the book.


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's writing style is a joke  ... Her vocabulary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chance of Pillowbite knowing the word "superlative" is less than zero, as you know.
> 
> I find it pathetic that the left cannot debate the ideas presented, and instead take this tack. Clearly Pillowbite is just reciting memes he memorized on the hate sites, this is one that floats around a lot, with folks who have an IQ of 85 thinking they are really clever for reciting it.
> 
> It shows the weakness of collectivists that you must stoop to such idiocy. Pillowbit is one of the dumber people on the board - you are not. I doubt Pillowbite has ever read a book in his life, anything beyond a hate script on DailKOS is beyond his attention span. But YOU know what you claim is false, and thus expose the weakness of the ideas you promote.
Click to expand...

Not all ideas deserve debating -- it's like the 9/11 conspiracy ideas or the "I was abducted by space aliens" ideas.

Collectivists? Using ideological jargon is a sure sign of imbecility.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> Why do crazy people always think they know what FREEDOM is?



And what do you think "freedom" is? Unquestioning obedience to the party?


----------



## Vandalshandle

And one more. Teachers everywhere torture kids with "Beowulf", in the 9th grade. I would put that under "Atlas" as well.


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the people who attack Rand's writing can never explain what's wrong with it - not with examples, at least.  It's the same meme regurgitated over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that I reread Atlas over Christmas break, and have quite a few criticisms, but what Dainty and Pillowbite claim is just stupid, clearly demonstrating that the speaker never read the book.
Click to expand...

Dante has stated before:
developmentally stunted psyches will always see some genius in cartoonish caricatures put forth by the likes of  Ayn Rand


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do crazy people always think they know what FREEDOM is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what do you think "freedom" is? Unquestioning obedience to the party?
Click to expand...

Party?  r u living in _teh_ 21st century?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> Not all ideas deserve debating -- it's like the 9/11 conspiracy ideas or the "I was abducted by space aliens" ideas.
> 
> Collectivists? Using ideological jargon is a sure sign of imbecility.



I see.

So you have never read the book, yet still feel entitled to bash it.

Got it.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the people who attack Rand's writing can never explain what's wrong with it - not with examples, at least.  It's the same meme regurgitated over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that I reread Atlas over Christmas break, and have quite a few criticisms, but what Dainty and Pillowbite claim is just stupid, clearly demonstrating that the speaker never read the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dante has stated before:
> developmentally stunted psyches will always see some genius in cartoonish caricatures put forth by the likes of  Ayn Rand
Click to expand...


Referring to yourself in the third person is a sign of mental illness.  The caricatures put forth by Ayn Rand are amazingly similar to personalities in the Obama Administration and Congress.  It's truly uncanny.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pillowbite, you wouldn't have successfully completed "Green Eggs and Ham" in Jr. High. You would have ZERO chance of comprehending the vocabulary used in Atlas even today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's writing style is a joke  ... Her vocabulary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your support for this claim is?  Her vocabulary is obviously about 5 time the size of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listening to her affectations and her crazy i_mmigrant from a totalitarian regime_ rants is enough to push any sane person into fits of seizure. Reading her books is entertaining when taken for what they are --- fantasy.
> 
> Anyone who advocates Rand's writings as a philosophy is almost always exposing their own arrested emotional and intellectual development
> 
> Rand was a crazy immigrant who never recovered from her nightmares
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, that's pure opinion driven by a viral hatred of freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do crazy people always think they know what FREEDOM is?
Click to expand...


Why do boot-licking toadies always call people who believe in freedom "crazy?"


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand's writing style is a joke  ... Her vocabulary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your support for this claim is?  Her vocabulary is obviously about 5 time the size of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listening to her affectations and her crazy i_mmigrant from a totalitarian regime_ rants is enough to push any sane person into fits of seizure. Reading her books is entertaining when taken for what they are --- fantasy.
> 
> Anyone who advocates Rand's writings as a philosophy is almost always exposing their own arrested emotional and intellectual development
> 
> Rand was a crazy immigrant who never recovered from her nightmares
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, that's pure opinion driven by a viral hatred of freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do crazy people always think they know what FREEDOM is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do boot-licking toadies always call people who believe in freedom "crazy?"
Click to expand...


Go out and but a *Don't Tread On Me* flag or banner -- It'll make you FEEL better about yourself. It will make you feel better and feed your delusion(s) about actually doing something to support freedom


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all ideas deserve debating -- it's like the 9/11 conspiracy ideas or the "I was abducted by space aliens" ideas.
> 
> Collectivists? Using ideological jargon is a sure sign of imbecility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> So you have never read the book, yet still feel entitled to bash it.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...

Hey moron, Dante has read her crap. He was young and developmentally immature at one time too -- but that was in his teenage years.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the people who attack Rand's writing can never explain what's wrong with it - not with examples, at least.  It's the same meme regurgitated over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that I reread Atlas over Christmas break, and have quite a few criticisms, but what Dainty and Pillowbite claim is just stupid, clearly demonstrating that the speaker never read the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dante has stated before:
> developmentally stunted psyches will always see some genius in cartoonish caricatures put forth by the likes of  Ayn Rand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Referring to yourself in the third person is a sign of mental illness.  The caricatures put forth by Ayn Rand are amazingly similar to personalities in the Obama Administration and Congress.  It's truly uncanny.
Click to expand...


Cariatures  -- look up the term

then    you are embarrassing usmb


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your support for this claim is?  Her vocabulary is obviously about 5 time the size of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to her affectations and her crazy i_mmigrant from a totalitarian regime_ rants is enough to push any sane person into fits of seizure. Reading her books is entertaining when taken for what they are --- fantasy.
> 
> Anyone who advocates Rand's writings as a philosophy is almost always exposing their own arrested emotional and intellectual development
> 
> Rand was a crazy immigrant who never recovered from her nightmares
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, that's pure opinion driven by a viral hatred of freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do crazy people always think they know what FREEDOM is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do boot-licking toadies always call people who believe in freedom "crazy?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go out and but a *Don't Tread On Me* flag or banner -- It'll make you FEEL better about yourself. It will make you feel better and feed your delusion(s) about actually doing something to support freedom
Click to expand...


I suppose we can expect to see you sporting a flag with the hammer and sickle on it shortly.  I'll bet you're also fond of wearing Che Guevara T-shirts.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the people who attack Rand's writing can never explain what's wrong with it - not with examples, at least.  It's the same meme regurgitated over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that I reread Atlas over Christmas break, and have quite a few criticisms, but what Dainty and Pillowbite claim is just stupid, clearly demonstrating that the speaker never read the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dante has stated before:
> developmentally stunted psyches will always see some genius in cartoonish caricatures put forth by the likes of  Ayn Rand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Referring to yourself in the third person is a sign of mental illness.  The caricatures put forth by Ayn Rand are amazingly similar to personalities in the Obama Administration and Congress.  It's truly uncanny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cariatures  -- look up the term
> 
> then    you are embarrassing usmb
Click to expand...


What would I learn if I did look up the term?


----------



## Dante

While the chief-idiot-in-this-thread is doing his homework... "caricature"

Dante will highlight 'parody'


"I want to give you a raise," she said.

_"No Miss Stank,"_ he threw back his hood and laughed. His face was like one she had never seen but always known. It was a proud face with hard, angular cheeks and cold, clear eyes, and it was crowned by black, angular hair. Intelligence shone from it like light off an expertly cleaned window.

"Why not?"

_"Because my mind is not for sale."_"I don't understand."

_"Who is John Goat?"_"I don't..."

_"Do you see these tools?"_ He held up his belt of window washing tools. _"Who do you think made them? Man did or, rather, man's mind did. Squeegie, wash bottle, soap...each is the product of man's mind. Man makes his tools with his mind; with his mind man, makes his tools."_ He paused, _"But man who makes his tools with his mind can also discard them. Like this..."_ he hurled the belt into the darkness.

_"Who is John Goat? If you really want to know, you'll have to come with me Miss Stank."_ He tore the robe from his body and was naked. 

Dallas gave him her hand and he took it. 

She felt a value pass between them. 

They leapt from the train and flapped their arms like the wings of a great copper bird. They flew upward into the objective moonlight, and freedom.

An anonymous tribute to Ayn Rand through parody - WendyMcElroy.com​


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go out and but a *Don't Tread On Me* flag or banner -- It'll make you FEEL better about yourself. It will make you feel better and feed your delusion(s) about actually doing something to support freedom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose we can expect to see you sporting a flag with the hammer and sickle on it shortly.  I'll bet you're also fond of wearing Che Guevara T-shirts.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

Ahh the romanticism of a crazed old Russian emigre_ An anonymous tribute to Ayn Rand through parody - WendyMcElroy.com_
_
"Who is John Goat?" _Dallas turned away from the window and looked at the man in the seat beside her. He had got on at one of the stops outside New York City but she had not noticed him before now. He had a bald head that seemed to rest like an unused bowling ball atop a pillow of fat that had once been a neck. His eyes were pale and lifeless. 

"Pardon me?" 

_"Who is John Goat?"_"I don't know. Besides, those words are just meaningless nonsense."

The man nodded dully. His nod seemed to reject the possibility of objective knowledge. Dallas turned back to the window and gazed out on the vast blank prairies. A lighted billboard flickered and her heart trembled with joy. She remember her thrill when, long ago, she first heard a radio commercial. Her brother had told her that bird songs were prettier but Francisco had laughed and said, "When I grow up I will make birds out of copper and sell them for money!" And the next day he had presented her with his first copper bird made from metal he had mined with his own hands.

"Does it know any songs," she had asked.

_"Only radio commercials."_And, then, they had made love.

_"Pardon me Miss."_ It was the bald man.

"Yes."

_"My name is Waldo Mudge. What's yours?"_"Stank. Dallas Stank."

_"Stank! The same Stank who runs the railroad?"_"Yes!" Dallas proudly threw back her head.

_"You loathsome capitalist, I hate you! I abhor you! Don't look at me that way; you have no right! I give all my blood to the poor! Organs, too, when I have the chance. All I have left are three ribs and a testicle. Stop looking at me like that! I live for others, for love...something YOU would never understand!" _He sneered hysterically.

"You're right, I wouldn't," she said. 

She turned back to the window. Suddenly, she felt a rush of air go past her head. She turned around and gasped. Waldo Mudge had deflated.​


----------



## Dante

*Parodies and Humor about Objectivism*
The links below go to materials parody or otherwise make fun of Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism. Straightforward criticisms of Objectivist ideas or criticisms of Objectivists can be found on separate pages.

Parodies and Humor about Ayn Rand and Objectivism



and if you've actually read Rand as Dante has -- it's precious stuff


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> Ahh the romanticism of a crazed old Russian emigre_ An anonymous tribute to Ayn Rand through parody - WendyMcElroy.com_
> _
> "Who is John Goat?" _Dallas turned away from the window and looked at the man in the seat beside her. He had got on at one of the stops outside New York City but she had not noticed him before now. He had a bald head that seemed to rest like an unused bowling ball atop a pillow of fat that had once been a neck. His eyes were pale and lifeless.
> 
> "Pardon me?"
> 
> _"Who is John Goat?"_"I don't know. Besides, those words are just meaningless nonsense."
> 
> The man nodded dully. His nod seemed to reject the possibility of objective knowledge. Dallas turned back to the window and gazed out on the vast blank prairies. A lighted billboard flickered and her heart trembled with joy. She remember her thrill when, long ago, she first heard a radio commercial. Her brother had told her that bird songs were prettier but Francisco had laughed and said, "When I grow up I will make birds out of copper and sell them for money!" And the next day he had presented her with his first copper bird made from metal he had mined with his own hands.
> 
> "Does it know any songs," she had asked.
> 
> _"Only radio commercials."_And, then, they had made love.
> 
> _"Pardon me Miss."_ It was the bald man.
> 
> "Yes."
> 
> _"My name is Waldo Mudge. What's yours?"_"Stank. Dallas Stank."
> 
> _"Stank! The same Stank who runs the railroad?"_"Yes!" Dallas proudly threw back her head.
> 
> _"You loathsome capitalist, I hate you! I abhor you! Don't look at me that way; you have no right! I give all my blood to the poor! Organs, too, when I have the chance. All I have left are three ribs and a testicle. Stop looking at me like that! I live for others, for love...something YOU would never understand!" _He sneered hysterically.
> 
> "You're right, I wouldn't," she said.
> 
> She turned back to the window. Suddenly, she felt a rush of air go past her head. She turned around and gasped. Waldo Mudge had deflated.​



Apparently you believe quoting someone who is ridiculing Ayn Rand is a valid example of her work.  Just as I stated previously, none of Rand's attackers can quote her work and explain what's wrong with it.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> *Parodies and Humor about Objectivism*
> The links below go to materials parody or otherwise make fun of Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism. Straightforward criticisms of Objectivist ideas or criticisms of Objectivists can be found on separate pages.
> 
> Parodies and Humor about Ayn Rand and Objectivism
> 
> 
> 
> and if you've actually read Rand as Dante has -- it's precious stuff



Thanks for admitting you can't explain what's wrong with Ayn Rand's work.  All you can do is post links to infantile hacks who make-up things she never said.  It's eerily similar to the the attacks morons like you make on Sarah Palin.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh the romanticism of a crazed old Russian emigre_ An anonymous tribute to Ayn Rand through parody - WendyMcElroy.com_
> _
> "Who is John Goat?" _Dallas turned away from the window and looked at the man in the seat beside her. He had got on at one of the stops outside New York City but she had not noticed him before now. He had a bald head that seemed to rest like an unused bowling ball atop a pillow of fat that had once been a neck. His eyes were pale and lifeless.
> 
> "Pardon me?"
> 
> _"Who is John Goat?"_"I don't know. Besides, those words are just meaningless nonsense."
> 
> The man nodded dully. His nod seemed to reject the possibility of objective knowledge. Dallas turned back to the window and gazed out on the vast blank prairies. A lighted billboard flickered and her heart trembled with joy. She remember her thrill when, long ago, she first heard a radio commercial. Her brother had told her that bird songs were prettier but Francisco had laughed and said, "When I grow up I will make birds out of copper and sell them for money!" And the next day he had presented her with his first copper bird made from metal he had mined with his own hands.
> 
> "Does it know any songs," she had asked.
> 
> _"Only radio commercials."_And, then, they had made love.
> 
> _"Pardon me Miss."_ It was the bald man.
> 
> "Yes."
> 
> _"My name is Waldo Mudge. What's yours?"_"Stank. Dallas Stank."
> 
> _"Stank! The same Stank who runs the railroad?"_"Yes!" Dallas proudly threw back her head.
> 
> _"You loathsome capitalist, I hate you! I abhor you! Don't look at me that way; you have no right! I give all my blood to the poor! Organs, too, when I have the chance. All I have left are three ribs and a testicle. Stop looking at me like that! I live for others, for love...something YOU would never understand!" _He sneered hysterically.
> 
> "You're right, I wouldn't," she said.
> 
> She turned back to the window. Suddenly, she felt a rush of air go past her head. She turned around and gasped. Waldo Mudge had deflated.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you believe quoting someone who is ridiculing Ayn Rand is a valid example of her work.  Just as I stated previously, none of Rand's attackers can quote her work and explain what's wrong with it.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so you failed in looking up: caricature

now try looking up: _parody_


----------



## Dante

Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps

* Become an Objectivist
in Ten Easy Steps *
* (with illustrations) *
* by
Ayndrej Bauer *


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh the romanticism of a crazed old Russian emigre_ An anonymous tribute to Ayn Rand through parody - WendyMcElroy.com_
> _
> "Who is John Goat?" _Dallas turned away from the window and looked at the man in the seat beside her. He had got on at one of the stops outside New York City but she had not noticed him before now. He had a bald head that seemed to rest like an unused bowling ball atop a pillow of fat that had once been a neck. His eyes were pale and lifeless.
> 
> "Pardon me?"
> 
> _"Who is John Goat?"_"I don't know. Besides, those words are just meaningless nonsense."
> 
> The man nodded dully. His nod seemed to reject the possibility of objective knowledge. Dallas turned back to the window and gazed out on the vast blank prairies. A lighted billboard flickered and her heart trembled with joy. She remember her thrill when, long ago, she first heard a radio commercial. Her brother had told her that bird songs were prettier but Francisco had laughed and said, "When I grow up I will make birds out of copper and sell them for money!" And the next day he had presented her with his first copper bird made from metal he had mined with his own hands.
> 
> "Does it know any songs," she had asked.
> 
> _"Only radio commercials."_And, then, they had made love.
> 
> _"Pardon me Miss."_ It was the bald man.
> 
> "Yes."
> 
> _"My name is Waldo Mudge. What's yours?"_"Stank. Dallas Stank."
> 
> _"Stank! The same Stank who runs the railroad?"_"Yes!" Dallas proudly threw back her head.
> 
> _"You loathsome capitalist, I hate you! I abhor you! Don't look at me that way; you have no right! I give all my blood to the poor! Organs, too, when I have the chance. All I have left are three ribs and a testicle. Stop looking at me like that! I live for others, for love...something YOU would never understand!" _He sneered hysterically.
> 
> "You're right, I wouldn't," she said.
> 
> She turned back to the window. Suddenly, she felt a rush of air go past her head. She turned around and gasped. Waldo Mudge had deflated.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you believe quoting someone who is ridiculing Ayn Rand is a valid example of her work.  Just as I stated previously, none of Rand's attackers can quote her work and explain what's wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, so you failed in looking up: caricature
> 
> now try looking up: _parody_
Click to expand...


As usual, Dante has no actual facts or logic.  He only has infantile personal attacks.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Parodies and Humor about Objectivism*
> The links below go to materials parody or otherwise make fun of Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism. Straightforward criticisms of Objectivist ideas or criticisms of Objectivists can be found on separate pages.
> 
> Parodies and Humor about Ayn Rand and Objectivism
> 
> 
> 
> and if you've actually read Rand as Dante has -- it's precious stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting you can't explain what's wrong with Ayn Rand's work.  All you can do is post links to infantile hacks who make-up things she never said.  It's eerily similar to the the attacks morons like you make on Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...

 Hmm, the infantile mind knows not what it is saying:  compare Ayn Rand and Sarah Palin

I doubt anyone could have so easily insulted both Ayn Rand and Sarah Palin as bripat9643 has so wonderfully done


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh the romanticism of a crazed old Russian emigre_ An anonymous tribute to Ayn Rand through parody - WendyMcElroy.com_
> _
> "Who is John Goat?" _Dallas turned away from the window and looked at the man in the seat beside her. He had got on at one of the stops outside New York City but she had not noticed him before now. He had a bald head that seemed to rest like an unused bowling ball atop a pillow of fat that had once been a neck. His eyes were pale and lifeless.
> 
> "Pardon me?"
> 
> _"Who is John Goat?"_"I don't know. Besides, those words are just meaningless nonsense."
> 
> The man nodded dully. His nod seemed to reject the possibility of objective knowledge. Dallas turned back to the window and gazed out on the vast blank prairies. A lighted billboard flickered and her heart trembled with joy. She remember her thrill when, long ago, she first heard a radio commercial. Her brother had told her that bird songs were prettier but Francisco had laughed and said, "When I grow up I will make birds out of copper and sell them for money!" And the next day he had presented her with his first copper bird made from metal he had mined with his own hands.
> 
> "Does it know any songs," she had asked.
> 
> _"Only radio commercials."_And, then, they had made love.
> 
> _"Pardon me Miss."_ It was the bald man.
> 
> "Yes."
> 
> _"My name is Waldo Mudge. What's yours?"_"Stank. Dallas Stank."
> 
> _"Stank! The same Stank who runs the railroad?"_"Yes!" Dallas proudly threw back her head.
> 
> _"You loathsome capitalist, I hate you! I abhor you! Don't look at me that way; you have no right! I give all my blood to the poor! Organs, too, when I have the chance. All I have left are three ribs and a testicle. Stop looking at me like that! I live for others, for love...something YOU would never understand!" _He sneered hysterically.
> 
> "You're right, I wouldn't," she said.
> 
> She turned back to the window. Suddenly, she felt a rush of air go past her head. She turned around and gasped. Waldo Mudge had deflated.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you believe quoting someone who is ridiculing Ayn Rand is a valid example of her work.  Just as I stated previously, none of Rand's attackers can quote her work and explain what's wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, so you failed in looking up:_ caricature_
> 
> now try looking up: _parody_
Click to expand...

 bripat9643 
look up:_ caricature_

now look up: _parody_


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh the romanticism of a crazed old Russian emigre_ An anonymous tribute to Ayn Rand through parody - WendyMcElroy.com_
> _
> "Who is John Goat?" _Dallas turned away from the window and looked at the man in the seat beside her. He had got on at one of the stops outside New York City but she had not noticed him before now. He had a bald head that seemed to rest like an unused bowling ball atop a pillow of fat that had once been a neck. His eyes were pale and lifeless.
> 
> "Pardon me?"
> 
> _"Who is John Goat?"_"I don't know. Besides, those words are just meaningless nonsense."
> 
> The man nodded dully. His nod seemed to reject the possibility of objective knowledge. Dallas turned back to the window and gazed out on the vast blank prairies. A lighted billboard flickered and her heart trembled with joy. She remember her thrill when, long ago, she first heard a radio commercial. Her brother had told her that bird songs were prettier but Francisco had laughed and said, "When I grow up I will make birds out of copper and sell them for money!" And the next day he had presented her with his first copper bird made from metal he had mined with his own hands.
> 
> "Does it know any songs," she had asked.
> 
> _"Only radio commercials."_And, then, they had made love.
> 
> _"Pardon me Miss."_ It was the bald man.
> 
> "Yes."
> 
> _"My name is Waldo Mudge. What's yours?"_"Stank. Dallas Stank."
> 
> _"Stank! The same Stank who runs the railroad?"_"Yes!" Dallas proudly threw back her head.
> 
> _"You loathsome capitalist, I hate you! I abhor you! Don't look at me that way; you have no right! I give all my blood to the poor! Organs, too, when I have the chance. All I have left are three ribs and a testicle. Stop looking at me like that! I live for others, for love...something YOU would never understand!" _He sneered hysterically.
> 
> "You're right, I wouldn't," she said.
> 
> She turned back to the window. Suddenly, she felt a rush of air go past her head. She turned around and gasped. Waldo Mudge had deflated.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you believe quoting someone who is ridiculing Ayn Rand is a valid example of her work.  Just as I stated previously, none of Rand's attackers can quote her work and explain what's wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, so you failed in looking up:_ caricature_
> 
> now try looking up: _parody_
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bripat9643
> look up:_ caricature_
> 
> now look up: _parody_
Click to expand...



Dante needs to look up "moron" and "mentally ill."


----------



## Dante

Dante has looked up 'moron' and the photo caption was:


> bripat9643


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> Dante has stated before:
> developmentally stunted psyches will always see some genius in cartoonish caricatures put forth by the likes of  Ayn Rand



Again demonstrating that you've not read the material and are merely flinging shit from a partisan perspective.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> Hey moron, Dante has read her crap. He was young and developmentally immature at one time too -- but that was in his teenage years.



Yeah, bullshit.


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dante has stated before:
> developmentally stunted psyches will always see some genius in cartoonish caricatures put forth by the likes of  Ayn Rand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again demonstrating that you've not read the material and are merely flinging shit from a partisan perspective.
Click to expand...


literary criticism as well as intellectual criticism of Rand has been around since the first days of her imbecilic publishing


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey moron, Dante has read her crap. He was young and developmentally immature at one time too -- but that was in his teenage years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, bullshit.
Click to expand...

okie dokie

Uncensored has now officially reverted back to Unhinged -- outta here


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> *Parodies and Humor about Objectivism*
> The links below go to materials parody or otherwise make fun of Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism. Straightforward criticisms of Objectivist ideas or criticisms of Objectivists can be found on separate pages.
> 
> Parodies and Humor about Ayn Rand and Objectivism
> 
> 
> 
> and if you've actually read Rand as Dante has -- it's precious stuff



Again...... We realize that the left is comprised of mindless drones who seek parody written by others to fill in the gaps of their intellect. So well you demonstrate that here...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> literary criticism as well as intellectual criticism of Rand has been around since the first days of her imbecilic publishing



But of no other novel... 

Sigh...


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> literary criticism as well as intellectual criticism of Rand has been around since the first days of her imbecilic publishing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of no other novel...
> 
> Sigh...
Click to expand...

are you saying it's all "a partisan perspective"????


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> are you saying it's all "a partisan perspective"????



I am saying that criticism of every word put to paper exists. That criticism and parody of the writings of Rand exist does not make the point you wish it to make, not beyond the Pillowbite level of intellect, at any rate.

Oh, and I believe that Brian is right on the nose, the major criticism I have of "Atlas" is that the characters are indeed caricatures. Unlike you, I recognize that this was intentional on the part of Rand.


----------



## Dante

even an admirer of Rand's nonsense has qualitative praise:

As a fictional character, John Galt isn’t burdened with forming a plan of action to address the realities that define the non-fiction world we live in (as a creation of Rand’s imagination, he also wasn’t burdened with the realities of 1957).  Speculating on his views is nothing more than a Rorschach of our own conflicted and ambivalent, economic views.  Would John Galt be more disturbed by the plethora of governmental regulations, or the government’s bailout of too-big-to fail institutions? * Would he have greater disdain for the “Occupy Wall Street movement, or the “moochers” who “earned” huge bonuses shortly after their banks were bailed out?*  I also suspect that, for both different and similar reasons, he would have very little respect for the realities and stark compromises within both US political parties.  

Who Is John Galt - Forbes

pretty funny movie review on poor box office draw: _"That must be the fault of those damn freedom-hating socialists, or perhaps it’s due to the fact that so few of the Tea Party types the series’ producers once hoped would queue up are, er, the literate sort."_  8216 Atlas Shrugged Who Is John Galt 8217 Review Rand Trilogy Comes to an End Variety​


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying it's all "a partisan perspective"????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that criticism of every word put to paper exists. That criticism and parody of the writings of Rand exist does not make the point you wish it to make, not beyond the Pillowbite level of intellect, at any rate.
> 
> Oh, and I believe that Brian is right on the nose, the major criticism I have of "Atlas" is that the characters are indeed caricatures. Unlike you, I recognize that this was intentional on the part of Rand.
Click to expand...

dufus, the illiterates who struggle with Rand's writings are the ones assuming the caricatures are more than that -- caricatures. Like you they have attacked parody as purely a partisan issues. It's all very amusing.

Most rational and sane people would never hold on to a Randian view of the world as being desirable or utopian. It is angry, hateful, cruel and just plain crazy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> even an admirer of Rand's nonsense has qualitative praise:
> 
> As a fictional character, John Galt isn’t burdened with forming a plan of action to address the realities that define the non-fiction world we live in (as a creation of Rand’s imagination, he also wasn’t burdened with the realities of 1957).  Speculating on his views is nothing more than a Rorschach of our own conflicted and ambivalent, economic views.  Would John Galt be more disturbed by the plethora of governmental regulations, or the government’s bailout of too-big-to fail institutions? * Would he have greater disdain for the “Occupy Wall Street movement, or the “moochers” who “earned” huge bonuses shortly after their banks were bailed out?*  I also suspect that, for both different and similar reasons, he would have very little respect for the realities and stark compromises within both US political parties.
> 
> Who Is John Galt - Forbes
> 
> pretty funny movie review on poor box office draw: _"That must be the fault of those damn freedom-hating socialists, or perhaps it’s due to the fact that so few of the Tea Party types the series’ producers once hoped would queue up are, er, the literate sort."_  8216 Atlas Shrugged Who Is John Galt 8217 Review Rand Trilogy Comes to an End Variety​




Again, that you believe "Atlas" unique in that it has criticism is truly amusing.

{One might argue that _Gatsby_ is "a relatively early modern American novel and only seems jejune in retrospect," Jason said. However, "given that Ulysses was published three years earlier, _Gatsby_ is inexcusable." Ouch. }

Is The Great Gatsby the Most Overrated Literary Novel of All Time Big Think


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> dufus, the illiterates who struggle with Rand's writings are the ones assuming the caricatures are more than that -- caricatures. Like you they have attacked parody as purely a partisan issues. It's all very amusing.



What I find amusing is your jejune insistence that parody is legitimate criticism, and indeed indicates failure on the part of the subject.

Lord of the Rings Parody

Generally, parody indicates the success of a work.



> Most rational and sane people would never hold on to a Randian view of the world as being desirable or utopian. It is angry, hateful, cruel and just plain crazy.



Because KOS says so? What is hateful or cruel about it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

*atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics   When did that happen?*


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> ....the major criticism I have of "Atlas" is that the characters are indeed caricatures. Unlike you, I recognize that this was intentional on the part of Rand.



of course all this does is highlight how pathetically foolish you are. It is caricature: 

_a picture, description, or imitation of a person or thing in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect._

Ayn Rand herself did not intend her caricatures to be taken as comedic, so we are left with _grotesque effect._

Certainly she didn't expect people like you to take John Galt as a _grotesque caricature_ of a hero? Or like Bible study dolts do you subscribe to a cafeteria style on interpretation of Rand novels where Rand secretly speaks to you on which parts are mythic and which parts are reality based? You can't have it all ways. 

Your hero worship is no different than what Ayn Rand herself despised most  -- cultism with a tinge of religiosity


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Generally, parody indicates the success of a work.


----------



## Dante

what is it with Uncensored2008 and this KOS?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> of course all this does is highlight how pathetically foolish you are. It is caricature:
> 
> _a picture, description, or imitation of a person or thing in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect._
> 
> Ayn Rand herself did not intend her caricatures to be taken as comedic, so we are left with _grotesque effect._
> 
> Certainly she didn't expect people like you to take John Galt as a _grotesque caricature_ of a hero? Or like Bible study dolts do you subscribe to a cafeteria style on interpretation of Rand novels where Rand secretly speaks to you on which parts are mythic and which parts are reality based? You can't have it all ways.
> 
> Your hero worship is no different than what Ayn Rand herself despised most  -- cultism with a tinge of religiosity



Caricature need not be comedic, son.

{a picture, description, etc., ludicrously exaggerating the peculiarities or defects of persons or things:}

Caricature Define Caricature at Dictionary.com

Characters such as "Cuffy Meigs" were intentional composites of attributes written into an exaggerated presentation. This is a literary device to make a point. 

Oh, my "hero worship" of Rand? 

Sometimes I think you are a parody of a mindless lefty...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> what is it with Uncensored2008 and this KOS?




Oops, are we not supposed to recognize the source of your thoughts?


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> Dante has looked up 'moron' and the photo caption was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643
Click to expand...


Only a moron would think that was a picture of me.


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course all this does is highlight how pathetically foolish you are. It is caricature:
> 
> _a picture, description, or imitation of a person or thing in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect._
> 
> Ayn Rand herself did not intend her caricatures to be taken as comedic, so we are left with _grotesque effect._
> 
> Certainly she didn't expect people like you to take John Galt as a _grotesque caricature_ of a hero? Or like Bible study dolts do you subscribe to a cafeteria style on interpretation of Rand novels where Rand secretly speaks to you on which parts are mythic and which parts are reality based? You can't have it all ways.
> 
> Your hero worship is no different than what Ayn Rand herself despised most  -- cultism with a tinge of religiosity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* Caricature need not be comedic, son.
> 
> {a picture, description, etc., ludicrously exaggerating the peculiarities or defects of persons or things:}
> 
> Caricature Define Caricature at Dictionary.com
> 
> 1a) Characters such as "Cuffy Meigs" were intentional composites of attributes written into an exaggerated presentation. This is a literary device to make a point.
> 
> Oh, my "hero worship" of Rand?
> 
> Sometimes I think you are a parody of a mindless lefty...
Click to expand...


*1)* "_Caricature need not be comedic, son_." * What did you NOT understand:* "Ayn Rand herself did not intend her caricatures to be taken as comedic, so we are left with _grotesque effect._"

1a) you still don't get it. 

Your defense of Rand borders on hero worship. You even live in a world where you remember all the characters, both major and minor of her novels. that is  when you insist you are not what you are. Maybe it is you Uncensored2008 as a caricature that is an_ intentional composite of attributes_?


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dante has looked up 'moron' and the photo caption was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a moron would think that was a picture of me.
Click to expand...



only an ignoramus would think they were making a funny, while ignoring the name attached to the bottom of the photo. 

true story


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is it with Uncensored2008 and this KOS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, are we not supposed to recognize the source of your thoughts?
Click to expand...



Uncensored-the-lame knows far much more about this KOS than Dante cares to --


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> *1)* "_Caricature need not be comedic, son_." * What did you NOT understand:* "Ayn Rand herself did not intend her caricatures to be taken as comedic, so we are left with _grotesque effect._"



What I don't understand is why you can't read? 

Though you cherry picked, I provided you a definition which offered more than the list you seek to limit us to.



> 1a) you still don't get it.
> 
> Your defense of Rand borders on hero worship. You even live in a world where you remember all the characters, both major and minor of her novels. that is  when you insist you are not what you are. Maybe it is you Uncensored2008 as a caricature that is an_ intentional composite of attributes_?



Rand is an enemy of the party. The party is all, those who are enemy must be attacked..

You are an absurdity, not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* "_Caricature need not be comedic, son_." * What did you NOT understand:* "Ayn Rand herself did not intend her caricatures to be taken as comedic, so we are left with _grotesque effect._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is why you can't read?
> 
> Though you cherry picked, I provided you a definition which offered _*more than the list you seek to limit us to.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1a) you still don't get it.
> 
> Your defense of Rand borders on hero worship. You even live in a world where you remember all the characters, both major and minor of her novels. that is  when you insist you are not what you are. Maybe it is you Uncensored2008 as a caricature that is an_ intentional composite of attributes_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand is an enemy of the party. The party is all, those who are enemy must be attacked..
> 
> You are an absurdity, not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


us?  who is this us? The Randian Collective?


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* "_Caricature need not be comedic, son_." * What did you NOT understand:* "Ayn Rand herself did not intend her caricatures to be taken as comedic, so we are left with _grotesque effect._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is why you can't read?
> 
> Though you cherry picked, I provided you a definition which offered more than the list you seek to limit us to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1a) you still don't get it.
> 
> Your defense of Rand borders on hero worship. You even live in a world where you remember all the characters, both major and minor of her novels. that is  when you insist you are not what you are. Maybe it is you Uncensored2008 as a caricature that is an_ intentional composite of attributes_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand is an enemy of the party. The party is all, those who are enemy must be attacked..
> 
> You are an absurdity, not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


*Step 2: Reason and Logic*
I identify the method by which true knowledge is acquired.
Knowledge is awareness of reality, i.e., of what there is. I have knowledge when I am aware of something _real_. But since it is _logically_ impossible for me to be aware of anything unreal, it follows that the proper way to acquire knowledge is to use _logic_.

Put in another way, my capacity to use logic is called _reason_. When I am reasoning in accordance with reality, I acquire new knowledge.

Logic is that method of thinking which is in accordance with reality.​
Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps


----------



## Dante

Noam Chomsky and Ayn Rand


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* "_Caricature need not be comedic, son_." * What did you NOT understand:* "Ayn Rand herself did not intend her caricatures to be taken as comedic, so we are left with _grotesque effect._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is why you can't read?
> 
> Though you cherry picked, I provided you a definition which offered _*more than the list you seek to limit us to.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1a) you still don't get it.
> 
> Your defense of Rand borders on hero worship. You even live in a world where you remember all the characters, both major and minor of her novels. that is  when you insist you are not what you are. Maybe it is you Uncensored2008 as a caricature that is an_ intentional composite of attributes_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand is an enemy of the party. The party is all, those who are enemy must be attacked..
> 
> You are an absurdity, not to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> us?  who is this us? The Randian Collective?
Click to expand...


He didn't use the word "us."   Check what I said about mental illness.  Hearing voices in your head is another symptom.  Also, visceral hatred of people for no apparent reason is another.


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* "_Caricature need not be comedic, son_." * What did you NOT understand:* "Ayn Rand herself did not intend her caricatures to be taken as comedic, so we are left with _grotesque effect._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is why you can't read?
> 
> Though you cherry picked, I provided you a definition which offered more than the list you seek to limit us to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1a) you still don't get it.
> 
> Your defense of Rand borders on hero worship. You even live in a world where you remember all the characters, both major and minor of her novels. that is  when you insist you are not what you are. Maybe it is you Uncensored2008 as a caricature that is an_ intentional composite of attributes_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand is an enemy of the party. The party is all, those who are enemy must be attacked..
> 
> You are an absurdity, not to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Step 2: Reason and Logic*
> I identify the method by which true knowledge is acquired.
> Knowledge is awareness of reality, i.e., of what there is. I have knowledge when I am aware of something _real_. But since it is _logically_ impossible for me to be aware of anything unreal, it follows that the proper way to acquire knowledge is to use _logic_.
> 
> Put in another way, my capacity to use logic is called _reason_. When I am reasoning in accordance with reality, I acquire new knowledge.
> 
> Logic is that method of thinking which is in accordance with reality.​
> Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps
Click to expand...


Are you thinking your post is some kind of meaningful argument in this discussion?


----------



## Dante

*Ayn Rand's Cookbook Marginalia*: "Ayn Rand did not take food as a 'metaphysical given.' She regarded food as man-made. Food, she realized, is something that has to _be produ_ced."


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1)* "_Caricature need not be comedic, son_." * What did you NOT understand:* "Ayn Rand herself did not intend her caricatures to be taken as comedic, so we are left with _grotesque effect._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is why you can't read?
> 
> Though you cherry picked, I provided you a definition which offered _*more than the list you seek to limit us to.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1a) you still don't get it.
> 
> Your defense of Rand borders on hero worship. You even live in a world where you remember all the characters, both major and minor of her novels. that is  when you insist you are not what you are. Maybe it is you Uncensored2008 as a caricature that is an_ intentional composite of attributes_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand is an enemy of the party. The party is all, those who are enemy must be attacked..
> 
> You are an absurdity, not to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> us?  who is this us? The Randian Collective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't use the word "us."   Check what I said about mental illness.  Hearing voices in your head is another symptom.  Also, visceral hatred of people for no apparent reason is another.
Click to expand...

"Though you cherry picked, I provided you a definition which offered more than the list you seek to limit us..."


----------



## Dante

_Q: How many Objectivists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: You second-hand, evading social metaphysician, Ayn Rand has _already_ changed it. The world just hasn't noticed yet._


----------



## Dante

_Q: What's two plus two?

A: Whatever Ayn Rand said it was.




Q: What's two plus two?

A: Ayn Rand said it was "four," but she never followed up on her own groundbreaking insight. Now, thanks to the work of David Kelley, we're finally able to verify her result independently and give it the attention it deserves._


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> us?  who is this us? The Randian Collective?



Either one engages in blind hatred, or one is involved in hero worship.

There can be no other type of post when dealing with enemies of the party..... 

You have chosen to be an absurdity.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> _Q: How many Objectivists does it take to change a light bulb?
> 
> A: You second-hand, evading social metaphysician, Ayn Rand has _already_ changed it. The world just hasn't noticed yet._



I love good satire.

Bummer that you don't....


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> us?  who is this us? The Randian Collective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either one engages in blind hatred, or one is involved in hero worship.
> 
> There can be no other type of post when dealing with enemies of the party.....
> 
> You have chosen to be an absurdity.
Click to expand...

okie dokie

FACTISM


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Q: How many Objectivists does it take to change a light bulb?
> 
> A: You second-hand, evading social metaphysician, Ayn Rand has _already_ changed it. The world just hasn't noticed yet._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love good satire.
> 
> Bummer that you don't....
Click to expand...

Like many of Rand's former cult followers who have become her most vocal critics, you like sophomoric drivel. You people deserve each other. Dante? We just amuse and then move along.

bye bye


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Apparently you believe quoting someone who is ridiculing Ayn Rand is a valid example of her work



Apparently you believe quoting someone who is ridiculing society is a valid example of society


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> Like many of Rand's former cult followers who have become her most vocal critics, you like sophomoric drivel. You people deserve each other. Dante? We just amuse and then move along.
> 
> bye bye



If I yearned for sophomoric idiocy, I would praise your posts above all...


----------



## Dante

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like many of Rand's former cult followers who have become her most vocal critics, you like sophomoric drivel. You people deserve each other. Dante? We just amuse and then move along.
> 
> bye bye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I yearned for sophomoric idiocy, I would praise your posts above all...
Click to expand...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Going back to the title of this thread, how many US citizens consider Rand's book/movie to be 'changing the face of American politics"?

There is certainly a small and very vocal group who embrace her books but most people read and discarded them in junior high as being naive and childlike. 

I've read her words and watched interviews with her and she always stops short of actually making it work. It will never happen but if a nation did try to live by her words, the result would be total chaos.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Dante said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the people who attack Rand's writing can never explain what's wrong with it - not with examples, at least.  It's the same meme regurgitated over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that I reread Atlas over Christmas break, and have quite a few criticisms, but what Dainty and Pillowbite claim is just stupid, clearly demonstrating that the speaker never read the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dante has stated before:
> developmentally stunted psyches will always see some genius in cartoonish caricatures put forth by the likes of  Ayn Rand
Click to expand...

 Rand is completely unoriginal, her 'philosophy' is nothing more than Nietzsche Lite for Americans, with John Galt starring as der Übermensch.


----------



## Dante

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the people who attack Rand's writing can never explain what's wrong with it - not with examples, at least.  It's the same meme regurgitated over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that I reread Atlas over Christmas break, and have quite a few criticisms, but what Dainty and Pillowbite claim is just stupid, clearly demonstrating that the speaker never read the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dante has stated before:
> developmentally stunted psyches will always see some genius in cartoonish caricatures put forth by the likes of  Ayn Rand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rand is completely unoriginal, her 'philosophy' is nothing more than Nietzsche Lite for Americans, with John Galt starring as der Übermensch.
Click to expand...



a little more complicated yet simplistic -- but you're close enough


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the people who attack Rand's writing can never explain what's wrong with it - not with examples, at least.  It's the same meme regurgitated over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that I reread Atlas over Christmas break, and have quite a few criticisms, but what Dainty and Pillowbite claim is just stupid, clearly demonstrating that the speaker never read the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dante has stated before:
> developmentally stunted psyches will always see some genius in cartoonish caricatures put forth by the likes of  Ayn Rand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rand is completely unoriginal, her 'philosophy' is nothing more than Nietzsche Lite for Americans, with John Galt starring as der Übermensch.
Click to expand...


You obviously have never read Nietzsche or Rand.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the people who attack Rand's writing can never explain what's wrong with it - not with examples, at least.  It's the same meme regurgitated over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that I reread Atlas over Christmas break, and have quite a few criticisms, but what Dainty and Pillowbite claim is just stupid, clearly demonstrating that the speaker never read the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dante has stated before:
> developmentally stunted psyches will always see some genius in cartoonish caricatures put forth by the likes of  Ayn Rand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rand is completely unoriginal, her 'philosophy' is nothing more than Nietzsche Lite for Americans, with John Galt starring as der Übermensch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have never read Nietzsche or Rand.
Click to expand...

obviously


----------



## Uncensored2008

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rand is completely unoriginal, her 'philosophy' is nothing more than Nietzsche Lite for Americans, with John Galt starring as der Übermensch.



Feynman is completely unoriginal, his 'science' is nothing more than Einstein Lite for Americans.

Saul, there is a reason you could only get into a Philippines law school....


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> [
> You obviously have never read Nietzsche or Rand.



It's not his fault, they never released a comic book paraphrasing Nietzsche..


----------



## washamericom

washamericom said:


> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> 
> it looks good, no, great.


i'm bumping this for the stats.. but it's a fun toplic ...


----------



## rightwinger

washamericom said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is your last chance to read the book before the movie comes out.
> 
> i have waited my whole life for this. when i was in high school i discovered ayn rand, it changed my life , and much to my delight, would end up in a conservative website framed by objectivism.
> i remember thinking, someday, once the internet is invented, this will be my political philosohpy and i will take it to the people..
> 
> life imitates art. we are dagney taggert and hank rearden (the protagonists) and the democratic party (led by one barrak obama... if that is your real name), is the government, and "mr. thompson".
> 
> you are going to be seeing and hearing and feeling atlas shrugged a lot in the coming time until the 2012 election.
> 
> as wonderfual as the original novel is, no, magnificient... the movie will better present to the masses, that big government is not only wrong, in this country, according to our constitution, it is immoral.
> 
> i further suggest that this *hollywood production* will play a large roll in unseating the president of obama, how ultimately and deliciously ironic. how do you like us now.
> 
> 
> it looks good, no, great.
> 
> 
> 
> i'm bumping this for the stats.. but it's a fun toplic ...
Click to expand...


There will be a special space in hell reserved for you


----------

