Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written. It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again. It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures. Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it. Thirty years later I did and know why. It stinks!!! The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
You got that right.
I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
Jesus. Boredom plus.
We can go back and forth you do not know anything about the Constitution or how it works. You and stalin are blood brothers you mirror him.No here's what I am implying ^^^^^^^^^
You don't understand American history, our Constitution, or how our politics work. Militia soviets will not be allowed to rule in America.
We can go back and forth you do not know anything about the Constitution or how it works. You and stalin are blood brothers you mirror him.You don't understand American history, our Constitution, or how our politics work. Militia soviets will not be allowed to rule in America.
this is a good example of the "oh yeah stupyhead" arguement...
"you can't understand the constitution because I do."
what does this have to do with atalas shrugged the movie changing the face of american politics.
Obama probably read it many years ago. Ironically, depending on the age of the children, they may come away from the movie scratching their heads and asking mommy whether or not daddy plans to quit his job just so he can make a point, or if daddy does quit his job, how will I eat? Will I still be able to get a new I-Pod?
or if daddy quits his job to be president, even after saying he wouldn't.... just to make his point.
most of the arguing i haer doesn't deliniate between selfish and selfless, it's all in the book.
It's comments like the one you make above makes it very clear that you can't be taken seriously.
Atlas Shrugged has to be one of the most boring novels ever written. It goes on for over a thousand pages repeating the same thing over and over again. It doesn't have a single fully developed character, only caricatures. Started it in college and wondered why I never finished it. Thirty years later I did and know why. It stinks!!! The book isn't prophetic, it's a political screed masquerading as a novel, a very poor one at that.
You got that right.
I had to read that book in High School. I had to finish it and do a book report on it. They would have frowned on a one pager "It Sucks" LOL
I am an avid reader but had all I could do to get through that crappy book.
Jesus. Boredom plus.
Yes it's boring.
If it weren't for the ideology Hollywood be saying it's a masterpiece.
I remember when Watchmen came out.
Many said it was a masterpiece that very few non-intellectuals can possibly understand.
I thought the movie was boring. Interesting at times, but boring. I preferred Kick-Ass.
I kind of like movies I don't have figure out what their motivations are.
We can go back and forth you do not know anything about the Constitution or how it works. You and stalin are blood brothers you mirror him.
this is a good example of the "oh yeah stupyhead" arguement...
"you can't understand the constitution because I do."
what does this have to do with atalas shrugged the movie changing the face of american politics.
Why are you asking me?
this is a good example of the "oh yeah stupyhead" arguement...
"you can't understand the constitution because I do."
what does this have to do with atalas shrugged the movie changing the face of american politics.
Why are you asking me?
i don't know, i guess that's what we do here.
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.
In this one respect, I'm siding with NYC here. I think they're right on this one.Call me crazy, but I'm going to predict that this movie will not change the face of American politics.
BUT, if this movie somehow catches the public zeitgeist, it will not change politics on it's own. It will change something more important, public philosophy and national identity.
Both of those changes, down the line, will alter the nation.
Chances are slim, but it's how these things change.
Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert. Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Anyone?
i have found that in life; sometimes it will take more than five minutes to absorb the essece of a philosophy or religion, or really, any complex theory. do you feel left out because you never read it and everyone is talking about it? or have you copped an undisciplined uninformed attitude. if you feel left out than good, that was th essence of my original post. if you don't read it because conservatives like it, isn't that the same as refusing to watch fox news.? you've got to love yourself before you can love another.
Ok, I 've read about Ayn Rand for 5 minutes, now I'm an expert. Let's discuss the mystery of her appeal to Conservatives, starting with this:
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Anyone?
"Productive achievement as his noblest activity". This is surely not what liberals want. They want money from the productive activity to give to those without productive activity.
I think this sums up why conservatives like "Atlas Shrugged.
Directive 10-289,
"Point One served two purposes: to establish the Unification Board, and to require that all persons presently employed, stay employed in their present capacities. The age of twenty-one was selected because that was the voting age at the time. (The voting age remained at twenty-one until the first term of the Richard Nixon administration, during which time Amendment XXVI formally set the voting age at eighteen.)
Point Two was a direct response to the phenomenon of people quitting and vanishing. This was the real reason for the economic decline, as the bureaucrats half suspected, half feared. Under this point, anyone who quit and vanished faced arrest, imprisonment, and expropriation of his assets.
Point Three provided for the surrender of all intellectual property of any kind to the government. This point actually directed that holders of patents and copyrights voluntary surrender their rights, clearly an oxymoron.
Point Four simply provided that no new inventions were to be introduced for the duration. Wesley Mouch and his associates regarded new inventions as destructive of people's livelihoods.
Point Five attempted to freeze all industrial or commercial output at present levels. For the purpose of determining those levels, the Directive declared a very special fiscal year to be the year ending on the date of the Directive, which was May 1.
Point Six attempted to freeze consumer spending at the levels seen in the fiscal year ending on the date of the Directive, as Point Five had done for business output.
Point Seven was an indefinite wage and price freeze.
Point Eight, the "elastic point," vested in the Unification Board the power to decide, finally and not subject to appeal, any question not covered in Points One through Seven.
You are the one that calls America a democratic Republic, and in this thread you called it a social democracy. You're contridicting yourself their sport.I will answer for myself. Because I believe in a constitutional republic that its representatives are generally elected democratically, bigrebnc throws terms he does not understand around (like stalinist), because he apparently wants militia units to rule our country. bigreb, what are you? You are not a constitutionalist, that is for sure.
Do you really want a mob rule? After isn't that what a democracy is? Imagine 51 percent of the people like me in charge. Change the laws as we please. I would repeal the NFA kill the military and place it back in the hands of the citizens militia.Just 51 percent.
Our representatives (republicanism) generally are elected democratically, with certain exceptions such as the Electoral College. Which you know. But you are not interested in the constitutional republic, but only power.
But you are not interested in the constitutional republic, but only power
REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
bill gates, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg... only interested in profit... howard hughs, the rockefellers...?
REALLY? Unlike you I am not the one that calls America a democracy, deomcratic republic, or a social democracy. All are controlled by the majority, they are mob rule. You will only see me address America as a Constitutional Republic. Because the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
I wrote, "Capitalism is economics, bigreb, while social democracy is a reform movement. Neither conflicts with the constitutional Republic. Let's review for you: (1) the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land; (2) a Republic is governed by republican representation, the election of representatives by the people. You with me on this?"
Stay with what I wrote, bud, and tell me how that conflicts with a constitutional republic?
Democracy majority rule mob rule
conflicts with
Constitutional Republic, Rule by law.
BUB
"Productive achievement as his noblest activity". This is surely not what liberals want. They want money from the productive activity to give to those without productive activity.
'his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life'...
...what if one is most happy when one is also unproductive?
she believed that man should be happy by being productive
if one is happy being non productive then in her mind, he is neither noble nor heroic.
It's a conservative philosophy so it doesn't work if you don't share her belief that being productive includes being happy.
bill gates, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg... only interested in profit... howard hughs, the rockefellers...?
The first two spend billions of their own money on their philanthropic projects. Your point?
However, in the last decade we've witnessed UNhappy workers because their employers don't care anymore about employee morale (again, a generalization).
When wages remain flat while bonuses for the top get increased, or people get fired from an 8-hour job and replaced by two part-timers just so a company won't have to pay overtime or benefits, the rest of the staff gets restless. And eventually the product itself suffers.
