"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[Old Rocks]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

You are an objectivist libertarian that does not believe in the social contract.

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?

 

[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.

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?

 

[rightwinger]

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?

What allegiance does the nation owe to it's citizens, wealthy or otherwise? Does not the nation have a moral obligation to them?

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]

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]

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?

What allegiance does the nation owe to it's citizens, wealthy or otherwise? Does not the nation have a moral obligation to them?

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]

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?

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.

Interesting take. Does the nation have an obligation to protect it's citizens from even itself?

 

[Bern80]

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]

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]

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?