"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[washamericom]

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.

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

she died for her art...

 

[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........

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

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]

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.

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.

 

[washamericom]

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...

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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.

Link ?

Just wiki it.

 

[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.

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

 

[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]

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]

"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.