Areactor

I notice it and I agree with this statement. I think Tammy Bruce put it correctly that polls, statistics on movie tickets, channels, merchandise, etc, never provide you the information on how many people DIDN'T see the movie, or watched the show, or bought whatever item that is related to the barometer of a nations belief and moral. I think a lot of people in the U.S. do have common sense and have the right ideals but never seek the effort in expressing them. And your last sentence is right on target. I know a woman who wants the government to withdraw their arms from it's control over political freedom but she also wants to revert to Socialized Healthcare. I didn't understand how she could believe in this until she told me about he being a hemophiliac and how she was afraid she couldn't afford the medical care in the future.

lol Spoiler Harry Osborne is hunted by the thoughts of his father. He then finds the secret room that has all the Green Goblin equipment. This scene is left ambiguous. You don't know if he has just come to the realization that his father is the Goblin and plans to apologize to Peter or he plans to become the Green Goblin himself.

After watching Spiderman 2, James Franco would be the absolute most perfect Peter Keating.

Replying to the Manchurian Candidate remark. They aren't just only going to make the same anti-technology theme, but against Capitalism itself. I haven't seen this movie but it's easy to come to this conclusion with Roger Ebert's review saying that (paraphrasing) the director has updated the enemies as (Communism) was the enemy of the past, corporations are the modern enemies. He was talking about the book itself, he was speaking as if it was reality.

The title alone probably gives away the questions itself. In the first chapter of OPAR, Peikoff states that an entity can only act accordingly to its nature. But he also states that there is only one action an entity can do. My question is, how is this possible when Man or an individual human being can act in different ways? My guess is that our actions are applied in different ways because of different situations but at the same time I imagine a person murdering others. If he isn't acting against his nature or in contradiction to it, what is he doing?

Agree. I scanned through the second site and realized they totally missed the point of Rand's "Cake" slogan. As I was reading, I thought to myself, "where the hell is this coming from?" Story. I've met way to many people who spend their time reading about Rand from her opponents instead of Rand herself. I went to a friend's workplace and Rand suddenly came up, a co-worker of his face brightened because he had just heard about Rand that very day. They turned to each other and began talking about it. They both mentioned that they thought it was just another form of "hedonism". (Shudders). My friend's brother said that she took the concept of Individualism to the extreme and that's why he hadn't read "Atlas Shrugged". I sit here thinking, "I've should of said, "That's only one of the reasons why you misread her. You didn't read her at all," but at the time nothing smart came to my mind. I decided to explain some of the basics that I knew I couldn't of misread and were probably right of the book from word to word. Ya know, going down the philosophical branches. They had to leave once I was done with the basics of Rand's metaphysics. They had all decided that I gave a good argument and that they agreed. I'm happy I studied the hell off of the first chapter of OPAR.

It's funny. In "And the Band Played On", it was first thought that the men catching "The Gay Disease" caught it because they were living in the fast lane, ya know, exessive drug use like poppers, PCP, crystal and other "party drugs. But the doctors suddenly realized each men had something in common, and that was each other's sex partners.

I've always thought the endless articles against a nanti-gay amendment on the CapitalismMagazine were their position.

What is a "Sense of Life" and how does one change their "Sense of Life"?

I think everyone's advice on this thread is useful. What I was worried about was literally calling him on it, giving him a lecture as if I was suddenly high and mighty. The Fountainhead I've realized is becoming more popular with teenagers though. I think it's in part because of High School assignments to read Anthem and there's the ARI's contest. I've also come across The Fountainhead in other literature like like Brett Ellis's "The Rules of Attraction", and "Perks of being a Wallflower." Both had positive reviews in their own way. I say their own way because a depressed, nihilistic, amoral character in "The Rules of Attraction" expressed his dislike with Roark. Anyways I honestly believe Ayn Rand is becoming more popular these days. I wonder why. Has any one else seen this or is it because I'm quite younger than most of you and I'm only focusing on MY generation?

Yeah. That comment discouraged me too.

Question. What do you do about those non-conformist Keatings who hide themselves behind Rand's philosophy? Some time ago I introduced Rand to an acquaintance of mine. He was extremely curious about what I believed in and why. I gave him a small speech and he asked me wherever could I think up such ideals. Supposedly they where so new and innovative he just had to know. Happily, I thought I might of just found a new friend interested in Objectivism, I thought to soon? I gave him Objectivist literature that I thought might of enlightened him about the basics. He read the Fountainhead, then read separate articles, and has recently began on Atlas Shrugged. This is all fine, but here’s the problem, the more and more I talk to him personally, the more I just see (symbolically) Keating mixed in with say Gus Webb. He doesn’t think for himself very much if any time. I know this because of how he treats me and other people. It’s as if he’s trying to prove something to me, get on my good side like Keating while being a good little non-conformist like Webb. Am I simply being an a**hole or is there something not right here?

I thought that too, but then I discovered this one feels more User friendly.

I think the best book on this issue is "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts. It doesn't really go on to the crises in Africa but I think there is a lot in comparison between the homosexual male community at the first 5 years of the U.S HIV/AIDS problem and Africa today.

What, is it scratching and irritating that conscience that some of us call common sense?

But why would it be in everyones interest that all businesses are privately owned? Would the phrase "profit over people" become a reality?

Whomever owns the highways, the (ex public) schools, the (ex public) postal office, etc.

Hello everyone I have a question regarding the private VS public issue. Would it be wise to hand the economy entirely to the private sector since the economy will revolve around "Private interest."?

Out of curiousity, if the ends doesn't justify the means then what does?

I'd like to mention that throughout the U.S, Highschool sophomores are required to read Anthem. I have a friend who believes her enviornmental and socialist healthcare theology can follow along the ideas offered in Anthem. Even though Anthem achieves it's goal, I wish Rand would of wrote alittle more to elaborate for people my friend. I never did explain to her that the same collectivist ideology of socialism and most likely the enviornmental policies being proposed today could bring man to such a stage like in Anthem.

Curiously, I was thinking of reading it. No one who stands up for Capitalism, globalization or even just plain Conservativism hasn't even critized the book extensively, if any criticism has been made at all.

What do you guys think of Greg Palast and his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About Corporate Cons, Globalization and High-Finance Fraudsters."

I'd like to bring it to everyones attention that most theistic arguments about the existence of a deity rests on their belief that the deity has played some part in Man's history. But yes, you guys have clearly rebutted the foundation of the theist belief.

I honestly need help talking about Moore. I have to many friends falling into the liberal trap because of this movie, and when they ask my opinion, I choke! I become speechless like a spell has taken over me. And that worries me because people honestly like to hear my opinon and even take consideration. But this Moore stuff has gotten me in a jiffy...

People Could anyone give me as much as 10 reasons to vote for Bush instead of Kerry? I'm not saying I'll be voting for Kerry, I'm just wondering why if I'm not going to vote at all, that I'll be voting for Bush instead of Kerry.