Bashing Ayn Rand

[Obamanation]

It's just so odd that cons embrace Ayn Rand who was pro-choice and an avowed atheist.

Everyone has shortcomings...

She did have Christian principles for the most part from what I understand.

 

[Political Junky]

It's just so odd that cons embrace Ayn Rand who was pro-choice and an avowed atheist.

Everyone has shortcomings...

She did have Christian principles for the most part from what I understand.

Rand Excerpt: On Christianity

The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

All emphasis was in the original. All punctuation and spelling is from the original.

Ayn Rand on Christianity

 

[LoneLaugher]

Now hold on a second --- O claims to know nothing about things that happen inside his admin. --- and that is OK...

I tell you that I don't know the specific political views of two people I have never met, and you call me a liar???

hahahahahaha!!!!

You can't be serious!!!

Have you read any of the posts that Yidnar and Matthew have submitted?

If you answer no, I will apologize. If you answer yes....you are a liar.

Well, I'm certain I have read posts by both --- but to suggest that I am familiar with their political views based on their names alone, I am not...

There are a lot of "Paulians" around here that I confuse for being conservative - then I learn that they are socially, as wacked out as a Colorado college student.

It is not possible to read posts from either of them and not know that they are conservative and racist. Your whinefest theory has huge holes in it. Your tent is filled with the types of people that you claim to have never met.

You need to pay closer attention.

 

[Obamanation]

Have you read any of the posts that Yidnar and Matthew have submitted?

If you answer no, I will apologize. If you answer yes....you are a liar.

Well, I'm certain I have read posts by both --- but to suggest that I am familiar with their political views based on their names alone, I am not...

There are a lot of "Paulians" around here that I confuse for being conservative - then I learn that they are socially, as wacked out as a Colorado college student.

It is not possible to read posts from either of them and not know that they are conservative and racist. Your whinefest theory has huge holes in it. Your tent is filled with the types of people that you claim to have never met.

You need to pay closer attention.

You are full of it...

...and even if they do make racist posts --- as I stated earlier, they most likely make them just to get you acting like a fool... seems that it works. hahahaha!!!

You ever ask them their views on racism? or, just assume they are racists because you can successfully race-bait them?? lol

Liberal sheeple --- what sad creatures you are!

 

[peach174]

Nonsense, peach: talking points, nothing more.

Those are facts not talking points.
73 % of this nation thinks that we are going in the wrong direction.
We need to choose as a nation.
Individualism and freedom or
Collectivism that leads to decay, bankruptcy, rioting and then totalitarianism.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well, I'm certain I have read posts by both --- but to suggest that I am familiar with their political views based on their names alone, I am not...

There are a lot of "Paulians" around here that I confuse for being conservative - then I learn that they are socially, as wacked out as a Colorado college student.

It is not possible to read posts from either of them and not know that they are conservative and racist. Your whinefest theory has huge holes in it. Your tent is filled with the types of people that you claim to have never met.

You need to pay closer attention.

You are full of it...

...and even if they do make racist posts --- as I stated earlier, they most likely make them just to get you acting like a fool... seems that it works. hahahaha!!!

You ever ask them their views on racism? or, just assume they are racists because you can successfully race-bait them?? lol

Liberal sheeple --- what sad creatures you are!

Yes. I have asked. Yidnar embraces it. Mathew......a little less cavalier....but he won't deny it.

You are wrong. Admit it. Have you enough integrity?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, peach: talking points, nothing more.

Those are facts not talking points.
73 % of this nation thinks that we are going in the wrong direction.
We need to choose as a nation.
Individualism and freedom or
Collectivism that leads to decay, bankruptcy, rioting and then totalitarianism.

Once again, talking points without evidence. You have got yourself in the false position of absolutes: statism or limited local government.

The 73% of the nation are the left of center through the right of center who will not support the far left or the reactionary right. They won't choose totalitarianism of the far left or the absurdity of the far right.

They will take over one of the parties and remake it in their image.

 

[Obamanation]

It's just so odd that cons embrace Ayn Rand who was pro-choice and an avowed atheist.

Everyone has shortcomings...

She did have Christian principles for the most part from what I understand.

Rand Excerpt: On Christianity

The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

All emphasis was in the original. All punctuation and spelling is from the original.

Ayn Rand on Christianity

...and??? She was a non-believer --- that doesn't mean she lacked Christian principles.

That is what you lefties don't get about the foundation of America. The principles taught by Christ are the same principle we based the laws of our Nation on. Believing in God and following the basic tennants are two very different things...

Christians aren;t looking to control people outside of the principles our founding fathers outlined in the constitution.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Everyone has shortcomings...

She did have Christian principles for the most part from what I understand.

Rand Excerpt: On Christianity

The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

All emphasis was in the original. All punctuation and spelling is from the original.

Ayn Rand on Christianity

...and??? She was a non-believer --- that doesn't mean she lacked Christian principles.

That is what you lefties don't get about the foundation of America. The principles taught by Christ are the same principle we based the laws of our Nation on. Believing in God and following the basic tennants are two very different things...

Christians aren;t looking to control people outside of the principles our founding fathers outlined in the constitution.

You really believe that?

 

[peach174]

It's just so odd that cons embrace Ayn Rand who was pro-choice and an avowed atheist.

That is what individualism and freedom is all about, those were her personal views.
It is her political views that are correct.
We are heading right down the path of what she was talking bout in Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Political Junky]

Everyone has shortcomings...

She did have Christian principles for the most part from what I understand.

Rand Excerpt: On Christianity

The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

All emphasis was in the original. All punctuation and spelling is from the original.

Ayn Rand on Christianity

...and??? She was a non-believer --- that doesn't mean she lacked Christian principles.

That is what you lefties don't get about the foundation of America. The principles taught by Christ are the same principle we based the laws of our Nation on. Believing in God and following the basic tennants are two very different things...

Christians aren;t looking to control people outside of the principles our founding fathers outlined in the constitution.

Basically the principles taught by all religions and supported by atheists, as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I doubt that AR was the second coming of Christian principles in America, whether politically or culturally.

For heaven's sake.

 

[Obamanation]

I doubt that AR was the second coming of Christian principles in America, whether politically or culturally.

For heaven's sake.

You are the first suggesting that anyone would think so.

 

[Obamanation]

Rand Excerpt: On Christianity

The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

All emphasis was in the original. All punctuation and spelling is from the original.

Ayn Rand on Christianity

...and??? She was a non-believer --- that doesn't mean she lacked Christian principles.

That is what you lefties don't get about the foundation of America. The principles taught by Christ are the same principle we based the laws of our Nation on. Believing in God and following the basic tennants are two very different things...

Christians aren;t looking to control people outside of the principles our founding fathers outlined in the constitution.

Basically the principles taught by all religions and supported by atheists, as well.

That isn;t true in the least bit...

Suggesting that secular principles and Christian principles are the same is the foolishness that steers the US left away from genuine morals...

 

[Obamanation]

It's just so odd that cons embrace Ayn Rand who was pro-choice and an avowed atheist.

That is what individualism and freedom is all about, those were her personal views.
It is her political views that are correct.
We are heading right down the path of what she was talking bout in Atlas Shrugged.

Yeah, I got a copy --- need to read it actually.

 

[peach174]

Nonsense, peach: talking points, nothing more.

Those are facts not talking points.
73 % of this nation thinks that we are going in the wrong direction.
We need to choose as a nation.
Individualism and freedom or
Collectivism that leads to decay, bankruptcy, rioting and then totalitarianism.

Once again, talking points without evidence. You have got yourself in the false position of absolutes: statism or limited local government.

The 73% of the nation are the left of center through the right of center who will not support the far left or the reactionary right. They won't choose totalitarianism of the far left or the absurdity of the far right.

They will take over one of the parties and remake it in their image.

Freedom should be for all Americans
If you knew history, you would know and recognize the evidence as facts.
I'm with the Founders of our country and Ayn Rand, who also knew history very well.
The Founders read it and lived through it. Ayn Rand lived through it.
They knew all about abusive governments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are facts not talking points.
73 % of this nation thinks that we are going in the wrong direction.
We need to choose as a nation.
Individualism and freedom or
Collectivism that leads to decay, bankruptcy, rioting and then totalitarianism.

Once again, talking points without evidence. You have got yourself in the false position of absolutes: statism or limited local government.

The 73% of the nation are the left of center through the right of center who will not support the far left or the reactionary right. They won't choose totalitarianism of the far left or the absurdity of the far right.

They will take over one of the parties and remake it in their image.

Freedom should be for all Americans
If you knew history, you would know and recognize the evidence as facts.
I'm with the Founders of our country and Ayn Rand, who also knew history very well.
The Founders read it and lived through it. Ayn Rand lived through it.
They knew all about abusive governments.

The Founders would have nothing to do with Ayn Rand. The Founders were not libertarians. However, the Founders were wrong about blacks, Indians, Asians, Mexicans, women, and civil rights.

The Founders, for all the wrong reasons, would not support America today.

 

[Political Junky]

Rand called upon the readers of her newsletter to oppose then-Governor Ronald Reagan's Presidential aspirations:

I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word -- i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose -- see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.
Ayn Rand

 

[dblack]

Once again, talking points without evidence. You have got yourself in the false position of absolutes: statism or limited local government.

The 73% of the nation are the left of center through the right of center who will not support the far left or the reactionary right. They won't choose totalitarianism of the far left or the absurdity of the far right.

They will take over one of the parties and remake it in their image.

Freedom should be for all Americans
If you knew history, you would know and recognize the evidence as facts.
I'm with the Founders of our country and Ayn Rand, who also knew history very well.
The Founders read it and lived through it. Ayn Rand lived through it.
They knew all about abusive governments.

The Founders would have nothing to do with Ayn Rand. The Founders were not libertarians.

Neither was Ayn Rand. She despised libertarians.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

You are correct that "Atlas Shrugged" could easily have been one third as long and still told the story. And, you are correct that Ayn Rand was an atheist and an objectivist. However, even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.

Ayn Rand greatly overdramatized her main theme of the evils of liberal/socialism, but she had sub themes that most people seem to have missed, and which are now becoming reality in the liberal/socialist world.

One sub theme is the desire by those in control to over regulate to the point that honest people cannot thrive. This creates a nation of law breakers who find themselves at the mercy of the regulators and their ability to destroy at will. This pretty well quells all open opposition.

Another sub theme is the simple fact that when liberal/socialist policies fail, those in power always have a scapegoat to blame the failures on. And, the fixes to these failures are worse than the failures themselves, and just as unlikely to succeed.