Yes

Well, he certainly is an unprincipled buffoon. And the country is all the worse for his buffoonery. His latest is that he would have rushed into that school in Florida to take down the shooter with his bare hands. Then there are the buffoons who elected him in the first place.....

There is little doubt about the Russians meddling in American affairs, especially the 2016 election. However, there were many other factors that contributed to Trump's win. His bromides about immigration and how immigrants took jobs away from those in Middle America, his pledge to deport undocumented immigrants, his diatribes about law and order, and even his slogan "Make America Great Again"- these had broad appeal to those outside the Northeast and West Coast. I'm not so sure about the dangers that the Russians pose as much as the Trump government with its staunch defense of weapon rights, it's racist policies, etc. His real slogan should have been "Make America Toxic."

North Korea is blowing smoke. And what better target than our current president, who will spew his aggressive, macho rhetoric in response. We all know that America has the best and most advance missile intercept weapons in the world. North Korea simply does not have the technology to thwart our missile defense. Any missile launches against us would most certainly not get any farther than the Korean Sea. Talk of a pre-emptive strike by America is foolish and dangerous.

One other thing- it is sad that Charlottesville, a city rich in American history and home to some of Thomas Jefferson's most significant achievements, was the target of this shameful demonstration.

It's been argued that Trump had much to do with this White Supremacist rally. Well, he did not. However, the fact that Trump has attracted lots of them leads me to believe that these demonstrators were empowered by Trump and what he represents. And Trump shamefull did not openly denounce these hateful demonstrators and the hate message they openly communicate.

Gio, I think your analysis at the foot of this thread is spot on. Much thanks for that. That being said, I leaned towards Emannuele Macron. I actually have a distant relative in France who is an ardent lePen supporter, the basis of which is his strong opposition to the open immigration policies of Hollande, which he shares with LePen. I wish the French the best of luck with this new leader, a breath of fresh air, a supporter of capitalism, and the dose of energy France seemed to need- and here in America we sorely need!

I totally disagree! One of the most inspiring things about this book was how it contrasted Peter Keating's early "success" with Howard Roark's struggles. It was indeed Roark's early struggles that led him to the quarry in the first place. In my opinion, that was quite an omission not to at least spend the first 20 minutes of this film to tell us how Roark wound up in the quarry in the first place. Roark would overcome his struggles because of his individuality and strength of character and ultimately succeed. Having read the book, which, for me was, for the greater part, greatly inspiring, then seeing the movie, this flaw became all the more apparent to me. The movie was not lacking in good direction and some fine performances- with the exception of Gary Cooper, whose casting was a misstep (although Rand insisted upon casting Cooper). Gary Cooper came off as wooden, for the most part.

OK, having read through his posting, I only agree in small part with his premise of taxation not being theft. However, it has come to a point, ever since 1919 or thereabouts, where taxation has devolved into "legalized theft." Taxation has been used to support government programs such as foreign aid, welfare, education, among other things. This had become a part of our government "contract." As we struggle through yet another instance where we locals have to vote on a town budget, and risk our property taxes being raised, we find that the bulk of our budget goes to education in our public schools. Talk about theft! And these are taxes based upon our property values and have NOTHING to do with our ability to pay! I can go along with paying an assessment based upon my ability to pay the government for their obligation to protect our rights, but beyond that? No!

I really applaud the fact that there are ample resources for all to explore objectivism for all, including blacks. Once each of them pursues Objectivism, then it will become apparent that: 1. Objectivism strongly opposes racism 2. Objectivism opposes anything related to ethnicity, race, even gender, in its stressing individualism over collectivism. Books to read? Perhaps any non-fiction work by Ayn Rand is fair game. But first, there must be an effort to convince those that Objectivism is NOT Conservatism, NOT white supremacist, the aspects which have been wrongly spread by today's "liberals."

Nicky and Software Nerd, I much appreciate your enlightening me on this topic. As I now understand it, there are other factors that have inhibited immigration and may be responsible for the influx of "illegal" immigration. it would be interesting to see how the two candidates address this topic.

Fast forward to 2016. Dr. Peikoff's views are just as pertinent today as they were back in 2008. America has long since developed into a mixed sociopolitical system which adequately protects capitalism, yet unfortunately has strong elements of entitlement in it. The roots of such a system happened in the 1930's under Roosevelt's watch. My main reservation about such a system is that it unfairly expects all Americans to pay into such entitlement. Now more than ever, I view the Republican platform and its vociferous, bombastic candidate, Donald Trump, as an ever-worsening threat to individual rights due to their embracing time-worn Christian beliefs about those who are not white anglo-saxon Protestant men. I note with disdain the current Senate opposing replacing a Supreme Court justice, doing everything in their right to delay such appointment, in the hope that a justice who espouses Religious Right values would get appointed by a Republican president. Such bromides as stopping immigration, building walls between us and Mexico, and prohibiting abortion ring heavily in the G.O.P. agenda. I don't know about the others on this forum, but I do not want to live in a country whose purpose is to further restrict our rights. But I am going to vote this November. And I hope that my vote, along with others who vote, will put an end to Donald Trump's pathetic campaign, send him back to reality trash TV where he belongs, and cause the Republican party to totally reorganize within their ranks.

...as it shouldn't! But how is it we have this problem in the first place? It would appear that America's current immigration laws allow for those to enter the country so long as they are "sponsored", do not have any criminal records, and are in sound health without communicable diseases. It would seem such immigration laws are valid as they intend to protect the rights of American citizens, as well as protect us from those (i.e. terrorists) whose discovered purpose is to initiate force. My observation is that the machinery to process immigrants is woefully inadequate, and that is why immigrants enter the country illegally. So the first step in immigration reform ought to be to strengthen the INS such that it can more swiftly and easily process immigrants. Curiously, with all his pronouncements regarding immigration, we have not heard The Donald™ even offer this solution.

Yet another collectivist. HO-hum! My criteria for a good candidate is one who staunchly defends individual rights. One who fully understands the Constitution and the purpose of American government as dictated by the Constitution. There is no candidate out there who fully meets this criteria. So, from my point of view , I will vote for the candidate who is least likely to impinge upon my current rights by proposing to pass restrictive legislation. That rules out any Republican, quasi-Republican, conservative, white supremacist, and racist. However, rather than copping out and NOT voting, I will vote.

It's a so-called dark comedy involving a dystopian society where being single is a crime. For its director, it's his first English language film. After watching it, it seems the message is clear- man cannot live a fulfilling life if a political collective is going to force restrictions upon him. One can read a more full synopsis of this film at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lobster I found the movie a bit short of wit and downright ugly to view. I found it lacked a sense of life and lacked any passion. I saw the movie to its bitter end. I can't imagine an objectivist liking this film. What are your thoughts?

When I read this in one of her non-fiction books, she admitted voting for FDR in 1932, then regretting it, due to FDR's quasi-socialist measures to fix the Depression. I also interpreted Rand's criticism of FDR regarding Soviet Russia as a result of FDR's decision to have American troops fight alongside the Soviet army in order to vanquish the Nazis. This will stand in history as a major blight to the record of an overrated president.

One thing to remember about the casting in this movie is that some of the most significant movies ever made had less than well-known actors in major roles, who later on rose to fame. Two movies that come to mind are "The Godfather" whose only big star was Marlon Brando, and "Star Wars" which featured a less-than-wellknown Harrison Ford.

The actress playing Dagny was the star of the failed TV series "Mercy" where she played a nurse. My initial impression is that she is too young for the part. There are plenty of actresses out there who are capable and a more appropriate age. I imagined Dagny Taggert to be in her late 30's or even early 40's. For my part, one of the things they got right was to NOT play this as a period piece. Trains are still a part of our culture to this day, and the failure of a huge transcontinental transportation company remains a compelling theme in this story. The most important aspect of NOT playing this as a period piece is that Ayn Rand meant for her novels to have a timeless quality about them. Ayn Rand is a Romantic Realist.

And that's a crying shame that we, who had great expectations that a great movie could be made from a great book, may ultimately not get to see such movie. We get a TV star from a cancelled FOX show "Mercy" playing the role of Dagny Taggert. We get a very young (or he seems so) actor playing the very important part of Hank Rearden. We get an inexperienced director and a cheesy looking trailer. Fans of Rand deserve much, much better. This was her most important book!

Was this kid's mind exhausted from 12 years of brainwashing in the public school system?

We'd rather burn oil than make it available for the sake of others Just make sure you hold your nose when this nonsense happens. Burnt oil, well, er, uh..... stinks

Sarah Palin is popular enough to be ridiculed on Saturday Night Live Seriously, it is disheartening to hear her speak at these Tea Party rallies and hear the roaring cheers that follow. To me, the Tea Party and the Black Panthers can duke it out in a scenario that might eclipse those conflicts described in Atlas Shrugged

And George Bush as a classic example of a right wing hippie on testosterone.

...and the reason they need such guidance is that they can easily fall prey to the ideology of the Right, which includes religious Christian ideology as a basis of moral judgement and standards. The Ayn Rand Institute has made numerous overtures to try to direct the Tea Party in a healthy direction where reason prevails. Otherwise, I strongly disagree with your assessment of the Tea Party. They are too intent on inviting anti-abortion zealots like Sarah Palin as keynote speakers, and Republican candidates as well. It has only a remote relationship with the Boston Tea Party in its reality (although we all know they promote it as such). The reality is that the Tea Party seems all too willing to sign on to anyone who professes the bromides of "less government," "lower taxes," and they love bodies to show up en masse. What about the right to one's life, liberty, and prosperity? This movement, in order to really have a strong core, cannot subvert that in favor of the lower tax, small government bromide. That I witnessed numerous signs by anti-abortionists at a recent Tea Party rally in New Haven showed me that this movement was indeed run by a bunch of libertarian right-wing hippies. Andrew Lewis recently gave an excellent speech as one of the few Objectivists who were invited to speak at a Tea Party rally. I am not, however, optimistic that they paid attention to his core points.

I totally agree. About all Obama and the government can do is what most governments in this situation would do, and that is hem, haw, threaten, and make it seem like they are "concerned." The only ones who can stop this leak would be engineers retained by BP who are obvious experts in this. The whole scenario here reminds me of the novel Atlas Shrugged. There are numerous scenes in that book where, in the face of disaster, politicos show their true colors. This Article has a good take on this.

I only half agree- the entire government is run by hippies, both Republican and Democrat. When you are elected a representative, you check your principles at the door