Bashing Ayn Rand

[dilloduck]

As the tunnel came closer, they saw, at the edge of the sky far to the south, in a void of space and rock, a spot of living fire twisting in the wind. They did not know what it was and did not care to learn.

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.

The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence, that individual effort is futile, that an individual conscience is a useless luxury, that there is no individual mind or character or achievement, that everything is achieved collectively, and that it's masses that count, not men.

The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion 'for a good cause' who believed that he had the right to unleash physical force upon others - to wreck lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder - for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of 'a good cause',which did not even have to be an idea, since he had never defined what he regarded as the good, but had merely stated that he went by 'a feeling' -a feeling unrestrained by any knowledge, since he considered emotion superior to knowledge and relied soley on his own 'good intentions' and on the power of a gun.

The woman in Roomette 10, Car No.3, was an elderly schoolteacher who had spent her life turning class after class of helpless children into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil, and that a majority may do anything it pleases, that they must not assert their own personalities, but must do as others were doing.

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No. 4, was a newspaper publisher who believed that mend are evil by nature and unfit for freedom, that their basic interests, if left unchecked, are to lie, to rob and murder one another - and, therefore, men must be ruled by means of lies, robbery and murder, which must be made the exclusive privilege of the rules, for the purpose of forcing men to work, teaching them to be moral and keeping them within the bounds of order and justice.

The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan, under the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

The man in Drawing Room A, Car No 6, was a financier who had made a fortune by buying 'frozen' railway bonds and getting his friends in Washington to 'defreeze' them.

The man in Seat 5, Car No.7, was a worker who believed that he had "a right" to a job, whether his employer wanted him or not.

The woman in Roomette 6, Car no. 8, was a lecturer who believed that, as a consumer, she had "a right" to transportation, whether the railroad people wished to provide it or not.

The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that intelligence plays no part in industrial production, that man's mind is conditioned by material tools, that anybody can run a factory or a railroad and it's only a matter of seizing the machinery.

The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, 'I don't care, it's only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.'

The man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11, was a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap little plays into which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all businessmen were scoundrels.

The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge.

The man in Bedroom F, Car No.13, was a lawyer who had said, 'Me? I'll find a way to get along under any political system.'

The man in Bedroom A, Car No.14, was a professor of philosophy who taught that there is no mind - how do you know that the tunnel is dangerous? - no reality - how can you prove that the tunnel exists? - no logic - why do you claim that trains cannot move without motive power? - no principles - why should you be bound by the laws of cause and effect? - no rights - why shouldn't you attach men to their jobs by force? - no morality - what's moral about running a railroad? - no absolutes - what difference does it make to you whether you live or die anyway?. He taught that we know nothing - why oppose the orders of your superiors? - that we can never be certain of anything - how do you know you're right? - that we must act on the expediency of the moment - you don't want to risk your job do you?

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No.15, was an heir who had inherited his fortune, and who had kept repeating, 'Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?'

The man in Bedroom A, Car no. 16, was a humanitarian who had said, 'The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned.'

These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas. As the train went into the tunnel, the flame of Wyatt's Torch was the last thing they saw on earth.

Really cheap, simplistic writing by one sick puppy.

If you read that quote, you have read the whole book. Seriously. I just saved you weeks of torture.

I'm sure you preferred Marx. Oddly enough liberals won't own up to whose ideals they revere.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, she was neither great nor is she missed.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/11-3

Ayn Rand: The GOP's Godless Philosopher | TIME.com

Daily Kos: Hero or Monster: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

Daily Kos? Really? You cite the Kos Kids?

Are you saying Ayn didn't idolize Hickman?

 

[Redfish]

No, she was neither great nor is she missed.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/11-3

Ayn Rand: The GOP's Godless Philosopher | TIME.com

Daily Kos: Hero or Monster: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

Daily Kos? Really? You cite the Kos Kids?

Are you saying Ayn didn't idolize Hickman?

I think he is saying that you do not understand the message of the book.

 

[g5000]

As the tunnel came closer, they saw, at the edge of the sky far to the south, in a void of space and rock, a spot of living fire twisting in the wind. They did not know what it was and did not care to learn.

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.

The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence, that individual effort is futile, that an individual conscience is a useless luxury, that there is no individual mind or character or achievement, that everything is achieved collectively, and that it's masses that count, not men.

The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion 'for a good cause' who believed that he had the right to unleash physical force upon others - to wreck lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder - for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of 'a good cause',which did not even have to be an idea, since he had never defined what he regarded as the good, but had merely stated that he went by 'a feeling' -a feeling unrestrained by any knowledge, since he considered emotion superior to knowledge and relied soley on his own 'good intentions' and on the power of a gun.

The woman in Roomette 10, Car No.3, was an elderly schoolteacher who had spent her life turning class after class of helpless children into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil, and that a majority may do anything it pleases, that they must not assert their own personalities, but must do as others were doing.

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No. 4, was a newspaper publisher who believed that mend are evil by nature and unfit for freedom, that their basic interests, if left unchecked, are to lie, to rob and murder one another - and, therefore, men must be ruled by means of lies, robbery and murder, which must be made the exclusive privilege of the rules, for the purpose of forcing men to work, teaching them to be moral and keeping them within the bounds of order and justice.

The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan, under the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

The man in Drawing Room A, Car No 6, was a financier who had made a fortune by buying 'frozen' railway bonds and getting his friends in Washington to 'defreeze' them.

The man in Seat 5, Car No.7, was a worker who believed that he had "a right" to a job, whether his employer wanted him or not.

The woman in Roomette 6, Car no. 8, was a lecturer who believed that, as a consumer, she had "a right" to transportation, whether the railroad people wished to provide it or not.

The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that intelligence plays no part in industrial production, that man's mind is conditioned by material tools, that anybody can run a factory or a railroad and it's only a matter of seizing the machinery.

The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, 'I don't care, it's only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.'

The man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11, was a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap little plays into which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all businessmen were scoundrels.

The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge.

The man in Bedroom F, Car No.13, was a lawyer who had said, 'Me? I'll find a way to get along under any political system.'

The man in Bedroom A, Car No.14, was a professor of philosophy who taught that there is no mind - how do you know that the tunnel is dangerous? - no reality - how can you prove that the tunnel exists? - no logic - why do you claim that trains cannot move without motive power? - no principles - why should you be bound by the laws of cause and effect? - no rights - why shouldn't you attach men to their jobs by force? - no morality - what's moral about running a railroad? - no absolutes - what difference does it make to you whether you live or die anyway?. He taught that we know nothing - why oppose the orders of your superiors? - that we can never be certain of anything - how do you know you're right? - that we must act on the expediency of the moment - you don't want to risk your job do you?

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No.15, was an heir who had inherited his fortune, and who had kept repeating, 'Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?'

The man in Bedroom A, Car no. 16, was a humanitarian who had said, 'The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned.'

These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas. As the train went into the tunnel, the flame of Wyatt's Torch was the last thing they saw on earth.

Really cheap, simplistic writing by one sick puppy.

If you read that quote, you have read the whole book. Seriously. I just saved you weeks of torture.

I'm sure you preferred Marx. Oddly enough liberals won't own up to whose ideals they revere.

And the logical fallacies of Randians keep on rolling in!

"If you don't like our hero, you must be a liberal!"

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Ayn Rand was, at heart, a romantic. Her capitalism is an unattainable dream, but she damned well chased it anyway.

...and she was right. The closer we move to it, the better off we are.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ayn Rand interviewed by James Day 1/2 - YouTube

Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman | Michael Prescott

In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. (Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.)

At the time, she was planning a novel that was to be titled The Little Street, the projected hero of which was named Danny Renahan.According to Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra, she deliberately modeled Renahan - intended to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." (Journals, pp. 27, 21-22; emphasis hers.)

"A wonderful, free, light consciousness" born of the utter absence of any understanding of "the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people." Obviously, Ayn Rand was most favorably impressed with Mr. Hickman. He was, at least at that stage of Rand's life, her kind of man.

So the question is, who exactly was he?

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

That's why it is impossible to understand Rand without understanding the philosophies that she used.

In all of the three major utopian studies, they all came up with the same end. The state had to become more oppressive and more totalitarian with each societal problem it solved until it finally collapsed under its own weight. Which is exactly what Ayn Rand said in her books too.

 

[Katzndogz]

Chris Matthew Sciabarra isn't a Rand scholar. He's more like an anti Rand scholar. His scholarly works include lauds to Marx and Hayek. He is also the co-editor, with Mimi Reisel Gladstein, of Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand.

 

[dilloduck]

Really cheap, simplistic writing by one sick puppy.

If you read that quote, you have read the whole book. Seriously. I just saved you weeks of torture.

I'm sure you preferred Marx. Oddly enough liberals won't own up to whose ideals they revere.

And the logical fallacies of Randians keep on rolling in!

"If you don't like our hero, you must be a liberal!"

So who are you recommending that we read ?

 

[Redfish]

That's why it is impossible to understand Rand without understanding the philosophies that she used.

In all of the three major utopian studies, they all came up with the same end. The state had to become more oppressive and more totalitarian with each societal problem it solved until it finally collapsed under its own weight. Which is exactly what Ayn Rand said in her books too.

those ideas are so foreign to liberals that their little minds cannot grasp the concepts.

 

[konradv]

No, she was neither great nor is she missed.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/11-3

Ayn Rand: The GOP's Godless Philosopher | TIME.com

Daily Kos: Hero or Monster: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

you post 3 left wing sites and think that is somehow meaningful?

Try this one. It's just the facts and Dear Leader Ayn doesn't come out looking good!

Critiques Of Libertarianism: Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand).

 

[Katzndogz]

The facts, as filtered through marxists.

Liberals are far too ignorant to discuss Ayn Rand. That's why they don't bother.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The fact that one can be an ignoramus and still pass him or herself off as a scholar by parroting the dopey tenets of Rand's sick mind is exactly why she is popular with intellectual lightweights.

And they all.....every last one of them......claim that it is their heightened intellect that allows them to "get" her.

Arrogant idiots. The worst kind.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not a heightened intellect. Just a heightened education. Liberals think that they show their intelligence by saying that those who respect Rand are arrogant idiots just PROVE that they cannot muster up any kind of bare credible argument. It is the equivalent of the schoolyard "So's yer old man". Liberals have a tendency to come up with a slogan instead of a coherent argument. You're a racist, idiot, crazy. Then they WIN, and can flounce off with their skirts up.

No one is going to "get" Ayn Rand without having knowledge of the philosophers upon which she based her works. No one is going to "get" Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged without having a prior understanding of what de Tocqueville meant when he wrote:

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

No one is going to "get" what the above means unless they first "got" the explorations made into creating the perfect state made by Plato, Hobbes or More.

Liberals approach Ayn Rand with the same level of understanding that a shahman approaches quantum physics without an education into basic science. Then of course the liberal complains that understanding and competently approaching the issues is an exhibition of arrogant idiocy.

Sorry, epic fail.

 

[peach174]

Atlas Shrugged should have been a short story. It is by far the most repetitive drudgery ever written.

I would wager most of the alleged conservatives who fly her banner don't even realize she was a hardcore atheist objectivist, and that objectivism misses an understanding of human nature by a country mile.

I agree that Atlas Shrugged is a difficult read, thats probably why most liberals who claim to know what its about have never read it.

There are many conservatives who have claimed to have read it who clearly have not.

Not that I really blame them. Those of us who completed it deserve a medal for enduring it.

What she believed personally has very little to do with the message of the book.

Why do you think that personal responsibility and personal freedom are bad things?

Why do you think that personal success is bad?

Why do you believe that for one man to get rich another man has to be made poor?

Strawman fallacy, and fallacy of the excluded middle. Which is to be expected from a fanboi of Rand.

I don't believe any of those things. Did you even read my signature?

Why are liberals unable to think logically?

Irony! That's THREE logical fallacies you commited in a single post!

I am old school conservative.

Ayn Rand paints every character in black and white in her writing. She does not believe in shades of gray.

Her complete and utter failure is demonstrated in the train tunnel scene, where she finds every last man, woman, and child on that train worthy of execution.

She was one sick puppy.

No, Ayn Rand didn't think that everyone on that train tunnel scene was worthy of execution.

The train tunnel scene happened because there was no one left of substance or intelligence in a leadership role and because of that the tunnel disaster was inevitable.

Dagny would have used rational facts rule her decision and would have never allowed the train to enter the tunnel, regardless of the consequence by upsetting the powerful Politician on board (Kip Chalmers). He demanded that the train get him to where his destination was and to hell with every thing and everyone else.

 

[Katzndogz]

I agree that Atlas Shrugged is a difficult read, thats probably why most liberals who claim to know what its about have never read it.

There are many conservatives who have claimed to have read it who clearly have not.

Not that I really blame them. Those of us who completed it deserve a medal for enduring it.



Strawman fallacy, and fallacy of the excluded middle. Which is to be expected from a fanboi of Rand.

I don't believe any of those things. Did you even read my signature?

Why are liberals unable to think logically?

Irony! That's THREE logical fallacies you commited in a single post!

I am old school conservative.

Ayn Rand paints every character in black and white in her writing. She does not believe in shades of gray.

Her complete and utter failure is demonstrated in the train tunnel scene, where she finds every last man, woman, and child on that train worthy of execution.

She was one sick puppy.

No, Ayn Rand didn't think that everyone on that train tunnel scene was worthy of execution.

The train tunnel scene happened because there was no one left of substance or intelligence in a leadership role and because of that the tunnel disaster was inevitable.

Dagny would have used rational facts rule her decision and would have never allowed the train to enter the tunnel, regardless of the consequence by upsetting the powerful Politician on board (Kip Chalmers). He demanded that the train get him to where his destination was and to hell with every thing and everyone else.

Ahhhh you get Ayn Rand! This makes you an arrogant idiot to liberals.

 

[Redfish]

I agree that Atlas Shrugged is a difficult read, thats probably why most liberals who claim to know what its about have never read it.

There are many conservatives who have claimed to have read it who clearly have not.

Not that I really blame them. Those of us who completed it deserve a medal for enduring it.



Strawman fallacy, and fallacy of the excluded middle. Which is to be expected from a fanboi of Rand.

I don't believe any of those things. Did you even read my signature?

Why are liberals unable to think logically?

Irony! That's THREE logical fallacies you commited in a single post!

I am old school conservative.

Ayn Rand paints every character in black and white in her writing. She does not believe in shades of gray.

Her complete and utter failure is demonstrated in the train tunnel scene, where she finds every last man, woman, and child on that train worthy of execution.

She was one sick puppy.

No, Ayn Rand didn't think that everyone on that train tunnel scene was worthy of execution.

The train tunnel scene happened because there was no one left of substance or intelligence in a leadership role and because of that the tunnel disaster was inevitable.

Dagny would have used rational facts rule her decision and would have never allowed the train to enter the tunnel, regardless of the consequence by upsetting the powerful Politician on board (Kip Chalmers). He demanded that the train get him to where his destination was and to hell with every thing and everyone else.

yes, you are correct. the whole concept is too complex for the liberal mind to comprehend---remember they all have that defective gene (DRD4), so its not really their fault---someday maybe medical science will find a cure, until then they should all be institutionalized, or moved to the liberal dream called Detroit

 

[peach174]

There are many conservatives who have claimed to have read it who clearly have not.

Not that I really blame them. Those of us who completed it deserve a medal for enduring it.



Strawman fallacy, and fallacy of the excluded middle. Which is to be expected from a fanboi of Rand.

I don't believe any of those things. Did you even read my signature?


Irony! That's THREE logical fallacies you commited in a single post!

I am old school conservative.

Ayn Rand paints every character in black and white in her writing. She does not believe in shades of gray.

Her complete and utter failure is demonstrated in the train tunnel scene, where she finds every last man, woman, and child on that train worthy of execution.

She was one sick puppy.

No, Ayn Rand didn't think that everyone on that train tunnel scene was worthy of execution.

The train tunnel scene happened because there was no one left of substance or intelligence in a leadership role and because of that the tunnel disaster was inevitable.

Dagny would have used rational facts rule her decision and would have never allowed the train to enter the tunnel, regardless of the consequence by upsetting the powerful Politician on board (Kip Chalmers). He demanded that the train get him to where his destination was and to hell with every thing and everyone else.

Ahhhh you get Ayn Rand! This makes you an arrogant idiot to liberals.

All liberals that I come in contact with think I'm a nut job.
Liberals think that using rational facts and intelligence is loony.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Not a heightened intellect. Just a heightened education. Liberals think that they show their intelligence by saying that those who respect Rand are arrogant idiots just PROVE that they cannot muster up any kind of bare credible argument. It is the equivalent of the schoolyard "So's yer old man". Liberals have a tendency to come up with a slogan instead of a coherent argument. You're a racist, idiot, crazy. Then they WIN, and can flounce off with their skirts up.

No one is going to "get" Ayn Rand without having knowledge of the philosophers upon which she based her works. No one is going to "get" Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged without having a prior understanding of what de Tocqueville meant when he wrote:

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

No one is going to "get" what the above means unless they first "got" the explorations made into creating the perfect state made by Plato, Hobbes or More.

Liberals approach Ayn Rand with the same level of understanding that a shahman approaches quantum physics without an education into basic science. Then of course the liberal complains that understanding and competently approaching the issues is an exhibition of arrogant idiocy.

Sorry, epic fail.

Yes, Katz. YOU are one to be considered an intellectual. Everyone here knows that.

 

[Redfish]

No, Ayn Rand didn't think that everyone on that train tunnel scene was worthy of execution.

The train tunnel scene happened because there was no one left of substance or intelligence in a leadership role and because of that the tunnel disaster was inevitable.

Dagny would have used rational facts rule her decision and would have never allowed the train to enter the tunnel, regardless of the consequence by upsetting the powerful Politician on board (Kip Chalmers). He demanded that the train get him to where his destination was and to hell with every thing and everyone else.

Ahhhh you get Ayn Rand! This makes you an arrogant idiot to liberals.

All liberals that I come in contact with think I'm a nut job.
Liberals think that using rational facts and intelligence is loony.

a good liberal makes all decisions based on feeeeeeeeeelings and emoooooooootion. their brains are not capable of logic and reason.