Mammon
-
Posts
1190 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mammon
-
-
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...
-
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...
-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/openforquestions/
Google's front page was plugging this. Figured there would be some questions we can all think of.
-
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.
-
I don't see any evidence that he felt compelled or guilted into giving his money to those affected by the economy.
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.
-
So, I've been thinking about going to the University of Florida for my MBA, then I saw this...
Ehhhhh... maybe not?
-
The previous post is an embarrassment to Objectivism.
Edward Cline is an embarrassment to Objectivism.
-
I've been wanting to read it Gladwell's work. When I get a chance too, I'll post a mini-review here.
-
Thales and Grames didn't run. If they did, people wouldn't vote for them anyway. So, I think it would be foolish of them to run.
Giuliani ran, but very few people voted for him. Why not? Since he won as New York City mayor, we can assume that he had a decent chances of getting "independent" votes in a general election. However, he was scuttled by the GOP because he was not religious enough for many of them. Today's GOP will scuttle you if you're clearly non-religious. They will tolerate you if you aren't too religious, but make enough conciliatory efforts, like McCain did. If you're enthusiastically religious -- like Sarah Palin was -- they'll love you.
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?
So, how come Giuliani, Thales, Grames or you are President right now?(That's supposed to be "aren't" or better yet, "are not the". Late night typos.)
-
There are two levels from which to answer this, both apply here:
1> You can show ANYONE to be an "incompetent asshole-bully" if you have years of video and audio and the time and desire to splice together a short segment to show them to be bad. I mean, hell, what is incompetent is you accepting this as evidence. If you show me a 37 second video of a life long friend whom I know to be a good guy and present him as despicable, I’ll know you to be a fraud. Rush has millions of fans who have known him for years.
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.
2> With the power of Objectivism I can show pretty much anyone who ventures into politics or philosophy to be incompetent. Ayn Rand has given us a powerful tool. I submit that Rush fairs better against this template than the vast majority of modern commentators, even though he is far from right on certain fundamentals.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.
Again, let's be clear, you presented as your "evidence" a heavily edited, very short (37 seconds) video from an network with extreme bias against republicans and a history of distorting the facts.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?
Furthermore, the msm has distorted Rush time and time again, because they can't deal with him straight up and honest.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.
Oh, and did anyone notice how the financial expert Jim Cramer buckled under to Obama's thugs? After saying some two weeks ago that Obama has been the biggest destroyer of wealth in his life time, he recently said that Obama has been doing a great job for the financial markets. He stuck to his guns for a while, but he caved within two or three weeks. Rush doesn't do that. He stands up for what he believes against an onslaught, and that, again, is awesome to behold.Again, Rush had the backing of the government thugs for years so I don't think it's that impressive.
And, again, I disagree with Rush on fundamentals and would not want him to be president for philosophical reasons.That's nice to know.
-
Strange, but in the thread on whether Obama is a socialist, didn't you just cite a couple of comments where he or people in his administration threw in a few blurbs about how they are pro-capitalism? Their actions clearly demonstrate something entirely different.
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.
Why do you support Obama?Off-topic.
-
He's not anti-intellectual. The modern left is anti-intellectual in the extreme, and most especially those in universities, but not Rush
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.
He's not down on intellectuals. Rush promotes intellectual books of the highest caliber and is a voracious reader of such books, including Ayn Rand’s works. What he is down on are fraudulent intellectuals. He spots fakes and calls them out.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.
Anyway, I've given my assessment of Rush and I think its dead on. Some of you guys act like I'm giving him a carte-blanche pass, when it's far from the case. I’m very critical of him. I consider my evaluation of him to be concise and objective.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?
Hell the great thing about Rush is he is a rare individual who does not buckle to the pressure of the mainstream media and government thugs. That is awesome! to behold.
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.
-
That is a 37 second clip from MSNBC. msnbc, are you kidding me? That’s as biased a network as there is. Also, that clip has clearly been heavily edited.
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!"
It’s been over two years and I'm impressed I remember the details as well as I did: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessent...mjf0.guest.htmlDoes 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.
Rush does care about people a great deal and he does wish people the best.Yeah, people who think and vote in the exact way he does. I've never seen him care to much about anyone else.
I know this from having listened to him since about 1993. I think that long stretch trumps your 37 second, heavily edited clip from an insanely biased network.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?
Obviously I disagree fundamentally with Rush on his position on this matter, but I like to deal with the ideas, not some side issue.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.
-
-
Actually, Israel is stuck between Obama and an evil power openly arming itself to destroy them.
It is wrong for the State of Iran to exist. From that point on, everything they do, be it nuclear development or "space exploration" just magnifies the evil that we allow to exist.
The claim that the Iraq war is somehow preventing Obama from wiping out Iran is ridiculous. Obama is the problem, not the Iraq war.
The claim that Iran's intentions are not malevolent, or that there isn't plenty of evidence to prove that they are malevolent, is laughable too. Their stated purpose is to destroy Israel.
"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.
-
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.
-
Haha, I hope I rack up a good list of "dead babies" in my life.
And as for Rush being a good person, I think Mammon demonstrated quite well he is not a good person. In fact, it would seem he is a very bad person who mocks those with diseases for political entertainment and condemns drug addict, supports the war on drugs while at the same time illegally possessing and using pain killers. Hypocrisy in normal life is bad, but on a scale where you have a real influence of people's opinions on drug addicts...It's just that much worse.
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.
-
Not true.
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
Levodopa.The most effective Parkinson's drug is levodopa, which is a natural substance that we all have in our body. When taken by mouth in pill form, it passes into the brain and is converted to dopamine. Levodopa is combined with carbidopa to create the combination drug Sinemet. The carbidopa protects levodopa from premature conversion to dopamine outside the brain; in doing that, it also prevents nausea. In Europe, levodopa is combined with a similar substance, benserazide, and is marketed as Madopar.
As the disease progresses, the benefit from levodopa may become less stable, with a tendency to wax and wane ("wearing off"). This then requires medication adjustments. Levodopa side effects include confusion, delusions and hallucinations, as well as involuntary movements called dyskinesia. These resolve with dose reduction, but sometimes at the expense of reduced parkinsonism control.
From Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskinesia
In the context of Parkinson's disease, dyskinesias are often the result of chronic levodopa (L-dopa) therapy. These motor fluctuations occur in more than half of PD patients after 5 to 10 years of levodopa therapy, with the percentage of affected patients increasing over time.[1] Dyskinesias most commonly occur at the time of peak L-dopa plasma concentrations and are thus referred to as peak-dose dyskinesias. As patients advance, they may evidence diphasic dyskinesias, which occur when the drug concentration rises or falls. Attempts to moderate dyskinesias by the use of other treatments such as bromocriptine appear to have been unsuccessful. [2] In order to avoid dyskinesia, patients with the young-onset form of the disease (YOPD) are often hesitant to commence L-dopa therapy until absolutely necessary for fear of suffering severe dyskinesia.Patients with severe dyskinesia resulting from high doses of parkinsonian medication may benefit from deep brain stimulation (DBS), which benefits the patient in two ways. Firstly, DBS allows a reduction in L-dopa dosage of 50-60% (thus tackling the underlying cause). Secondly, DBS treatment itself (in the subthalamic nucleus or globus pallidus) can reduce dyskinesias. [3]
The use of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) has been shown to enhance the effects of L-Dopa while reducing the associated dyskinesia in primates with simulated Parkinson's disease.[4]
And the symptoms of Parkinson's, from Wikipedia.
It is characterized by muscle rigidity, tremor, a slowing of physical movement (bradykinesia) and, in extreme cases, a loss of physical movement (akinesia).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.
-
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.)
I agree. THis is completely shameless of M.J. Fox. He is your typical shameless democrat. Now that Osama is in office they are going to kill more babies so M.J. Shakey dont shake as much any more. M.J we all know it is an act you libby swine. We are not that stupid and shameless. YOu just like to kill babies because your a liberal. I have class like Rush. I don't go out and start shaking around so I can have 39 babies killed in my name. I hope you shake yourself to hell. You shameless foolYep. 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.
-
Michael J. Fox said he deliberately does not take his medicine sometimes in order to make a more dramatic case for his disease. This is what Rush was referring to. The msm, being dishonest and/or lazy, somehow missed that.
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.
Rush's fundamental flaw is his religiosity. But, as a human being, he's a very good person, and a very courageous person.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!
-
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.
-
I depends on what happens between being a gifted child and being an adult. I also know a few of people who were also in the gifted programs in elementary and middle school, who in high school, focused on drugs, skipped college (if they graduated at all), and never focused on their intellect.
Me too, it's pretty tragic imagine what the world would be like if all the "gifted" kids remained gifted.
-
It literally used google to come up with the best search results. Why shouldn't I just use google?
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.
-
The poll is actually missing an answer: the government should not put any more money into any more private companies and then try telling them what to do. That's the moral and fundamental answer, and a "yes" or "no" that is not accompanied by that is a meaningless sideshow.
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.
Ayn Rand Skit on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon
in Current Events
Posted
Yeah, this was pretty recently after I read the book and I discovered the historical facts a couple years later.