Mammon

Since he hasn't nationalized things left and right like Chavez has, since the Administration said they still prefer a private banking system over a nationalized one. and the fact that senior officials although still oblivious, still profess that greed and markets work.

Is Barack Obama a socialist? According to a socialist -- no. For what that's worth.

Are you a nilihist? Do you really enjoy seeing people take your ideals out of context and try to couple them with contradictions and therefore misrepresent them? I'm never going to get used to people taking someones words out of context or spinning their ideas to justify a misleading position, because it's immoral and I'm against it on principal. But principals are something these conservatives will never understand to begin with. I have many problems with conservatives, as this community is well aware of. One of those problems is that the conservatives are the biggest "have my cake and eat it too" adherents. They want to worship a man who advocated pure altruism and selflessness, who said that it would be difficult for the rich to get into the better part of the after life. Yet, They advocate an economic system that is focused on greed and selfishness and based on the concept of individual rights and freedom, that says being rich is a perfectly fine. And many conseratives want to be rich, or already are rich. They also have an obessions with pointless social issues, all of which involve violating someones rights and crushing their freedom. Yet they drive around with proper stickers with phrases like "Freedom isn't free!" and "Life without God, how's that working for you?" This is entire movement is focused, at least in it's modern incarnation, on forcing contradictions to work. And now some of their outspoken leaders and members are hijacking a concept from a book written by a woman who created a philosophy based on the fact that contradictions can not exist; who said selfishness is a virtue. Why does it seem like me and a few others are the only Objectivists who seemed pissed off about this? I'd expect more outrage, but for whatever reason there isn't too much fuss made about the fact that people are taking your ideals and shitting all over them in front of the whole world. The only reason I can come up with here as to why so many neocons are picking up Rand, is along the same lines RussK mentioned, they simply don't understand what they are talking about. They don't seem to make any concentrated effort to understand ideas at all. This seems to be a problem with all Christians (actually, more so with the Protestants than Catholics), they never dig deeper into ideas, they just accept what's on the surface. It's persistent mental shallowness and it transcends into their politics as well. And according to CapitalismForever, we are supposed to "get used to it" I guess we should all go out and find the nearest F-150 with a "ONE NATION UNDER GOD!" bummer sticker and confess our supposed mutual feelings on absolutely everything -- especially the fact that liberals are not human beings with a reasoning mind capable of understanding the ideas that we decided to half-ass understand and attempt to implement. Because also according to CapitalismForever, we have nothing in common with liberals. In fact, I think I'm on to something here. Let's just totally forget about what Ayn Rand actually advocated at all. Let's just cherry pick select quotes and ideas like our new conservative best friends do with their Bibles! It's worked wonders for them. I mean it's pretty obvious John Galt was a Christian. He said "God" in his speech. That must mean he is a Christian. And he wasn't homosexual, so that must mean homosexuality should be punishable by law! They don't do whatever everyone else is doing, so that must mean they are in the wrong. I mean, if everyone is doing it must be a good thing. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. That's how we decide whats good or not. Everyone around me is a Christian and says Atlas Shrugged is a good story about liberals and their agendas being bad, so that must be the truth. Ah yeah, cherry picking is the best way to go! What have I been thinking all along? These conservatives aren't bad, they just have a tiny, tincy, wincy problem of completely evading reality when it suites their emotional knee-jerk reactions and rationalizations. Nothing there to worry about, that's easily overlooked. They don't like Democrats. Which is makes them practically Objectivists right? Who is John Galt? A conservative, Christian, pro-American, Republican-voting, Cowboy-hat wearing, country-music-star, talk-show-host, Joe-the Plumber, American who didn't like the Democrats and their progressive tax policies. Better get used to it.

Would you mind putting real titles on your threads? Something that explains what thread is before it's clicked on.

I made a poll just to keep track of things, and I'm curious. I personally think that they should receive the $170 million in bonuses because they are contractually obligated to receive those and although they played a part in this crises, it's not entirely their fault and they sill earned the money. Not only that, but it will give incentive to keep workers there who not only work at a place a lot of people hate, but also keeping them away from a hostile job market. It's better for everyone to pay the bonuses. So, I disagree with the administration's officially stated outrage on the issue.

Rush also seems to be on the intellectual level of a high school bully. Remember when he made fun of Micheal J. Fox and said he was faking his disease? Yeah, that's really the type of association we want with Rand's ideas and ideals. And that must be a sign of him "getting it" right?

Of course not, that would require people to understand what the f*ck is happening in the world around them. How many people are going to do that? Anyways, about the idiots who agree with us. I'd like the ARI or Peikoff to come out and make a statement that Objectivism is not affiliated with any political party of any movement besides it's own. Some boundaries need to be set.

Well, then you've obviously never met a Republican who said they'd throw you in jail if it was up to them like I have. Well, I could be snide and say that it's because Rush is a particular brand of idiot that is difficult to repeat because those who believe like he does would rather just listen to him, because that requires less thought and effort than trying to capture part of his market share. He bashes Republicans for not being Republican enough. That's being a mouth piece for a collective, seeing as how the collective comes before any else. And yes, I've listened to Rush and he is an embarrassment for the country and the thorn on the side of reason. Edit: And he reminds of John Eden, I'm expecting him to roll up in the White House with Enclave troopers to take out Obama.

And it's these views that are going to stagnate any progress made in our efforts. I don't think those ones were funny either. I stopped watching Colbert after he did it the first time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15ping.html?em I read this NYT article on this site... http://www.kosmix.com/ And I have to say, it's incredibly useful! I like it. It's good for researching all sort of stuff. I wanted to share it with everyone in hopes that it will become a useful tool for everyone. Just search for "Objectivism" and watch all the interesting stuff that pops up.

Stole my damn thunder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcg5t0mT8V4 This is the preview for the new Terminator movie. Not only is it exceptionally bad-ass, but hearing Christian Bale on the radio saying "This is John Connor" makes me think hearing him on the radio saying "This is John Galt" would be pretty bad-ass as well.

There are some contradictory views on humanity-as-a-whole on this board. I'm surprised at how many people keep saying that these superheroes don't act like superheroes. Thats. The. Point. Ozymandias thought he was saving the world. They actually took out the most important part of the ending, in the comic he asks Manhattan if his plans were worth it, or if it succeeds and Manhattan says "Nothing ever ends" and just leaves him to suffer in self-doubt. I need to dig up the comic and reread but I remember Mahattan being more like "Yeah, you have a point" instead "Yeah you're right" The fact that he sort of leaves Ozymandias to his own fate instead of giving him reassurance is, in my opinion, supposed to be punishment. In the movie they took it a little further by having Night Owl beat him up, rightly so. So, I don't think they "fell in line", they keep quiet, but they aren't too happy about it and probably would come out with the truth eventually when all the dust settled. That's what seemed implied to me. Again, the groundbreaking point of Watchmen was to make superheroes more like real people, with real problems or to give a picture of what that might look like, as opposed to things like the Incredibles, where superheroes are what you'd expect them to be.

Well, you're cramping something long, without a lot of depth, that covers a lot of issues... into a 3 hour visual format. Watchmen is shorter and already had the visual area done with because it was a comic. Atlas Shrugged is longer, you'd have to cram it even more and start from the ground up on the visuals. And Watchmen is generating a lot of negative buzz because the concepts go over peoples heads... it would be even more so with Atlas Shrugged.

Exactly. With all fiction, there are questions on how the different, fictional variables would affect the world we live in, which is what Watchmen shows. Moore is distrustful of government in all forms. Superheroes are modern myths. I think scenes like this one, which play off another myth, just connect the two myths. Kind of like all these different alien movies throw Roswell and Area 51 in there, to connect their own myths to the already established ones. It's not liberal propaganda. It's to show the world as dark and corrupt, which is why it needs it's heroes. But those heroes live and come from that same world, their just human with human strengths and human flaws. Besides Dr. Manhattan, who isn't human but still has human flaws. I think it's why Moore choose Nixon, instead of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford or Reagen as the inept leader of the country. Well that's good. It's still an incredible work of art. I think the movie highlights that. You're making a lot of unfair assumptions. Firstly, Moore hates everyone politically, liberals and conservatives alike. All the liberals I know who read it understand if perfectly fine. The conservatives too, the ones that actually bothered to read that is. Fixed that for you.

Wow... you're criticisms align with this complete moron's. Some things didn't make the medium jump, which is understandable. Alan Moore also said he made this a comic because he wanted to do specific things with a comic, and make comments on the genre. That's something that seems to go over a lot of the critics head. Watchmen is deconstruction of the super-hero genre. It basically comments about what would happen if superheroes actually lived in a real world, with real problems. Some might be psychotic, or have psychological problems, or society would think there a joke, or the government would use them for their own purposes. At the time of writing, comic books always presented things in this really simple view without tackling a lot of deeper issues. Alan Moore wanted to write something that would challenge and change that; to show the marvelous amounts of art, and value that the genre/medium is capable of. So when you take it out of a graphic novel format, you'll lose some of that context and value. Regardless, the story and concept are still interesting and engaging enough to make a movie out of. My major problem with the movie was the emphasis on the action, which I think they put in there to make it more appealing. There isn't a lot of action in the actual comic, at least compared to most comics. I think they made Night Owl and Silk Specter a lot better then they were int he comics, although I kind of like chubby Night Owl just because it shows that he is really retired. But his problems with Veidt at the end was a nice touch. I don't think Manhattan was done quite right either, but it was close enough. And they put Nixon in there way more then he was in comic. The movie and the responses to it make me think about a lot of things. One of them being... is this how an Atlas Shrugged movie would turn out?

Where I went to school, the only kids with liberal leanings were the really intelligent ones non of the conservatives wanted to be friends with. I was always bothered that we divided on politics in middle school. I think, as soon by this kid, it's all about their environment. The kid is bright, but replicates his environment. He's home schooled and attends a Christian school and goes to a Baptist church. He shares all the same views those around him share, but is a lot better at articulating them. I'm torn about 14 year olds, I've seen some exceptionally bright ones and some horrifyingly stupid ones. I think it's the age when you decide if you're going to go through life being a dumbass or not. I agree, I respect passion however it's presented. As long as it's for something... positive. Needless to say, passion for things like murder or torture shouldn't be respected.

*In other words -- why does a philosophy that rails against everything cults teach have people who actually treat it like a cult? That's not an insult to the philosophy, just certain people who claim to practice it.

To answer the original question -- perhaps she didn't know? It's an interesting paradox, why does a philosophy grounded in things like individualism,self-interest, rational thinking, and a focus on finding the truth in things... is inhabited by some of the most collectivist, rationalistic, and close-minded charlatans?

So, how come Giuliani, Thales, Grames or you are President right now? [When this is answered then I'll jump back to Thale's, utabintarbo's, foutianhead777's and Rearden_Steel's response, because they touched some significant as well]

There is a large difference between principles and buzzwords. Those contradict those principles. And contradictions can't exist, no? Do they really? Because if they actually understood those principles, they would actually adhere to those principles and things would be better than they are today. Those aren't principles for them, they are buzzwords. Floating abstractions. What does Rush Limbaugh know about hard work and individualism? He gets paid millions to be a mouth piece for a collective, that he sings and dances with every step of the way. Grounded principles have become hollow mantras as far as the Republicans are concerned.

Does the Rand Method imply making BS and baseless accusations and expecting someone to defend them? Why do you spend 75% of your disposable income on chocolate sundaes, fletch?

So, being a non-Democrat makes someone better then Obama for the office of President (which I think you're implying because of the stalemate comment)? Is that the only criteria? Does any non-Democrat qualify? What criticisms of other politicians?

What makes you better?

What principles are those exactly?