Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mammon

  1. Yeah, this was pretty recently after I read the book and I discovered the historical facts a couple years later.
  2. HOLY SHIT I meet Jimmy Fallon a couple years ago, I was working with him. He was a really cool, down-to-earth guy. I was in a crowd on set and everyone was talking about their favorite authors and I said my was Ayn Rand and he said never heard of her, and I suggested he look her up. I also gave the run down on the meaning of dollar sign to another person, and Fallon was in earshot. I wonder if...
  3. Well, I forget people would rather sit on their ass and bitch and complain then do anything. You're missing out, looks like he is hard at work thinking of answers to these questions...
  4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/openforquestions/ Google's front page was plugging this. Figured there would be some questions we can all think of.
  5. http://www.businessweek.com/careers/manage...ws+%2B+analysis This is a article criticizing the letter. I'd post my thoughts, but I'm out the door and I'm shutting this thing down. I'll get back to it in a couple hours.
  6. Despite the reasons he said he was giving, I think there is also more two. It's like saying "If this is going to cause so many problems, I'll give it away, but the government sure as hell isn't going to get it's hands on it" I think that's admirable and within his self-interest, but as Zip pointed out -- not the only option. As sNerd and Jake Ellison pointed out, he was and feels threatned. It's a self-defensive measure too, so the mob and their pitchforks don't come banging on your door... but the mob still doesn't get the money, they just don't have any reason to bother this man and his family anymore. I think this is an incredibly well-written letter and I'm very proud of this man for taking the time to write it and the New York Times for being objective just enough to run this and get the truth out on the situation. If anyone is in New York, see if you can catch this guy leaving work and slip him a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
  7. So, I've been thinking about going to the University of Florida for my MBA, then I saw this... Ehhhhh... maybe not?
  8. I've been wanting to read it Gladwell's work. When I get a chance too, I'll post a mini-review here.
  9. So, the criteria for running with the GOP is to be outwardly religious? Why is that? Would anyone here say that Giuliani is more well-reasoned and rational than the people he ran against in his own party? (That's supposed to be "aren't" or better yet, "are not the". Late night typos.)
  10. I can shot the following holes in that. A.) Edited or not, it doesn't change the fact that he said it. So why should I just ignore it because it appeared on a certain network? B.) Having millions of fans does not make you right. See: Hitler, Chavez, (Bin Laden?) C.) You act like this is the only exposure I've ever had to Limbaugh. I just showed this as one of many examples of this man being despicable. I guess it all depends on where you set you standards then. Which is an interesting point of discussion for all Objectivists on this board. This could be true. But I think the Republicans have a history of distorting facts themselves. So what do you get when you have people distorting people who distort, exactly? I don't believe in the existence of "the MSM", but you're right, there are distortions all around. However, people who criticize Rush seem to hit the right nails sometimes. I can't help but agree. Again, Rush had the backing of the government thugs for years so I don't think it's that impressive. That's nice to know.
  11. You're dropping the context. I never said they were "pro-capitalism" or at least what we considered "pro-capitalism", I was illustrating that Obama has not satisfied the criteria for being a blatant socialist although there is a lot of dialogue that suggests he is a socialist. I like defined terms and objective measures. When judging something, you need to look at the facts, not subjective interpretation. In the context of this thread and what was said... it does actually raise some issues. Obama had moments of showing support for "free-markets" and this is enough for socialists to crictize him and yet not enough to convince others that he is not a socialist. With Objectivists, they show support for conservative commentators and politicians who say they are for "free-markets", but not for the President when he says the same after being accused of being the opposite. There is a double standard. Again, for the record. That post in that other thread that you insisted on bringing up was to provide clarification on what Obama is not. Off-topic.
  12. I'd say he appears anti-intellectual because of his choice of words and methods of argument. He resorts to name calling and childish antics. Like with Fox, he didn't bother checking the facts before he said "he must of been off his meds" ... He doesn't appear to think about things before he just says them. Also, I agree with what themadkat was saying. She's listened to him for years and doesn't hold in high esteem so I don't think insisting that listening to him more makes everything magically better. Let's see him write a doctoral thesis if he's so much more intellectual than all those college folks. I've said it before, that the fact he promotes Rand is such a disappointing thing because he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what Rand actually tried to get people to understand in her works. I remember someone on this board saying something along the lines of "if they advocate Rand or her philosophy, what principles of that philosophy do they specifically advocate" Maybe it was about someone else, I couldn't find it. But, the point stands with Rush. It would be nice if he grasped some principles and talked about those to show it, other then misrepresenting Rand by blatantly advocating things she spoke passionately against. It doesn't do her justice. It might not be a big deal for other people here, but it is for me because I take her ideas and ideals seriously. I do think you're giving him a free pass. But I'll coincide that you know more about him than I do. I know what I've seen and what I've heard, and I have not liked either, ever. I don't much like the idea of digging through cow manure looking for a gold ring I heard a rumor about it. But again, other people have listened to him a lot and despise him too. So, you're obviously seeing something there other people aren't, or vice versa. Maybe it's something we see and you don't? I have to take issue with this because just a few years ago, Rush was pretty much an apologist for the government and their actions.
  13. If MSNBC said gravity existed would you stop thinking gravity existed? That's the typical conservative response to any and all criticisms, "bias!" "agenda!" "the MSM" "intellectuals!" Does he have have the actual transcript from the actual show in question on there? Please link that instead. I don't have time to sip through his backpedaling revisions of what he actually said. Yeah, people who think and vote in the exact way he does. I've never seen him care to much about anyone else. No matter how long you listened to him, that doesn't change the what he said in those clips. He still said what said. And what are we to think of his movements when he was saying Fox was "acting"? I guess that was Rush doing a little dance to work out during the show and he just happened to do it at the same time and the big, mean, evil, MSM is spinning it into something it's not? Why do you like him if he is fundamentally wrong on something that's so important? For the record I don't think he has ideas.
  14. More like this is what's needed. More evidence from our Intelligience Agencies.
  15. "Stuck between a rock and Iraq" is a play off "a rock and a hard place" seeing as how there is a rather messed up place next door to Iran. A place we attacked and insisted they had WMDs when they didn't. Should we make the same mistake choice, or have solid evidence before we go in this time? Solid evidence that they are creating nuclear power plants for the sole purpose of creating nuclear bombs.
  16. Yeah, it's not really wrong for them to have a nuclear power plant. They have a right to build it, and as we do to question their motives. And I seriously question their motives. But we can't just barge in their and blow the plant up without solid evidence that they have malevolent intentions. Stuck between a rock and Iraq.
  17. What I don't understand is how it's so easy to show Rush as being an incompetent, asshole-bully and yet their are so many Objectivists who basically say, "His religious comments irk me, but other than that I like him" Is that all it takes to get Objectivists to like you? Just throw in a few blurbs about free-markets and an Ayn Rand quote and they seemingly drop any standards of decency they had to give you undeserved respect. I wonder if I said something like "Throw the fucking queers, homos, and niggers in the gas chambers because they are parasites of the free-market and God only likes white people, fuck yeah CAPITALISM! ATLAS IS GOING SHRUG OFF BABY KILLING FAGGOTS" what the response would be?* "Besides the God comment, this guy has good views because he said parasites are bad and likes capitalism and Ayn Rand" Granted, Rush isn't that bad. The point is to ask the question, why do some Objectivists seem to lower their standards when someone agrees with them on an issue? And to what extent are they willing to lower their standards? What extent to they reserve their judgment, evade the reality of mixed premises, false moralities and hypocritical agendas? It just seems like this is so common with conservative commentators. Some Objectivists trump up every little factual mistake, or snide comment any liberal commentator will make, but rush to the defense of every conservative commentator. Where are the principals? Where is the Objectivity? Rush is an asshole regardless of how many agreeable comments he may make from time to time. I judge Limbaugh in the same vein that I judge Micheal Moore. Sometimes they both say reasonable things, somethings they both make factual errors... but their particular political leanings have no effect on my overall judgment of them. If they say something wrong, stupid, or rude, I still take note of that. In Rush's case I'm not going to forget about it because he plugs Rand occasionally. Maybe that makes things even worse because it's an embarrassing insult to Rand's legacy. Again, I wish everyone would step back and see there is more wrong with Limbaugh and his Republican colleagues than just their religious beliefs (which some people even go so far as to downplay as much as possible, but that's a shitstorm for another thread.) *This is hyperbole to make a point.
  18. Oh. Well, apparently your like Limbaugh and have no regard for looking up the facts before you just assert things. Here's a couple minutes worth of research you should of done... From: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/parkinson...ments-and-drugs From Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskinesia And the symptoms of Parkinson's, from Wikipedia. In a nutshell, Parkinson's results in the victim not being able to move. The drugs make you move, but overcompensate, obviously. No one wants to have to suffer through that unless it's absolutely necessary and in Micheal J. Fox's case, it is. It's probably incredibly difficult for him to do ads and interviews in this state. To say he is faking it, or exaggerating it is lower than low. To say he is doing because he is OFF the medication is just plain, fucking stupid. But I wouldn't expect anymore from Limbaugh.
  19. I saw this Youtube comment on the video I linked.(I was looking for a fuller version but all I found was this and several dumb "remixes" of it, so I apologize for not having the full thing.) Yep. This is exactly the type of person who's rational, reasonable and freedom loving enough to understand the off-hand references to Rand that Limbaugh makes.
  20. The shacking is a side effect of the medicine, it's side effects are also very volatile. Micheal J. Fox explained this in an interview that was on an "MSM" network. He said he is FAKING it. Faking it. I'm sure Rush spent years in medical school and working with patients of Parkinson's to identify the proper symptoms of the disease-- oh wait never mind, he spent years being an ass on the radio instead. But I do think Rush would know a thing or two about being on or off medicine seeing as how he abuses pills himself. Also, lord forbid Micheal J. Fox tries to make a dramatic case for a disease many (especially Rush and his audience) don't understand. I'm pretty sure that fat, cigar-smoking, fuck has no idea what it's like to suffer like Fox does. He'd do better to just shut the fuck up and listen. However, I think Rush and the rest of the Republicans certainly enjoy seeing people suffer seeing as they oppose the advancement of science and medicine because of their own metaphysical delusions. Either that or that are too clueless to care. That's it? A little religion, but other than that making fun of someone with a life destroying disease makes somebody a very good and courageous person? I should pop some pills and go tell a kid with Down-syndrome that he is faking it, and his mental inabilities qualify him for a nomination on the Democratic ticket. Then I'd get praised as a hero for America, conserativism and capitalism! I can be the new face of the Republican party!
  21. This might be a little late, but if you didn't hear last week, there is some was a feud between (Comedy Central's) The Daily Show's Jon Stuart and (CNBC's) Mad Money's Jim Cramer. The two sat down for an interview and here it is, totally uncut. http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/...show-interview/ I didn't really take sides in this debate because both made good and bad points, but in this interview I find myself disagreeing with Stuart more. For instance, As far as "seeing it coming" on behalf of CNBC, I don't think you can blame them because there have been many indicators indicating many things. The inverted yield curve appeared before this recession as did all the others in the past, but the "liberal" media sources didn't seem to care much and the one and only big "conservative" news station, Fox, was too busy reporting crazy celebrity antics. Basically the signs were there, or the best signs we have, but no one in CNBC or otherwise seemed to report it too much. So you can't lay this on the feet of CNBC. (I could be wrong with this. This is based off my casual watching of the news over the past few years.) The big thing that bothered me was how Stuart was beratting "long term savings" and essentially saying it doesn't work and equating the stock market to get-rich-quick informercials. The difference between the two is the stock market is pegged to real value being created, what Stuart called "actual hard work" that hard work on behalf of millions of Americans translates more value being created for firms, which leads to a higher stock price, which leads to a better investment, which leads to people being able to make their money grow along with the rest of the economy. Cramer really pulled his punches, and Stuart got a free ride to sit there and berat him about something Cramer knows way more about. I think that's really what bothered me the most. Stuart has his head up his ass sometimes and thinks he knows more. Sometimes he makes good points, but (at least in my opinion) he never quite demonstrates his superior knowledge. Hence, why is a comedian and not a serious journalist. Although, the irony is that serious journalists make the same mistakes as comedians. Over all, I'm not to happy with Comedy Central right now because of the mistreatment of Rand and now this.
  22. Me too, it's pretty tragic imagine what the world would be like if all the "gifted" kids remained gifted.
  23. Mammon


    What Dwayne said. Basically with Google, you have to do a whole bunch of individual searches, like for images, news, blogs, books, etc. This sort of organizes everything so it's right there to begin with. I don't think it's meant to compete with Google as a search engine. If you want to do a basic search, use Google, if you want a plethora of information instantly use Kosmix I guess. I'm going to experiment with MeeHive and see how that works as well. It's made by the same people.
  24. I don't think it's really necessary. Your comment above states no, because they should of been in bankruptcy. Well that's water under the bridge, and they are still there. Do you think they shouldn't be paid at all because they should in bankruptcy? Should hunt down all the employees and take all the food they bought since the bail out and put it all back on the shelves? The DMV shouldn't exist, so should I just not ever get a license from them? Anti-drug laws shouldn't exist, so should I just go smoke weed in front a police station? What's done is done. Focus on what exists. What good are principles if acting on them requires changing the past? What's missing is a question. I asked because I heard "everyone in America is outraged about this" so I should of asked "Are you outraged by this?" I'm not.
  • Create New...