I've encountered a number of liberals who have long lists of what employers should provide. If you tell them that you can't run a business and pay all that out they say that you shouldn't be in business then.

Yes, Hank's marriage was a sham but in my view doesn't excuse his not ending it before moving on with Dagney. His actions were all the more egregious because in every other way he was so highly disciplined and analytical. I took this character flaw to illustrate that humans are imperfect. But it's a flaw nonetheless. Personal happiness and impulse control don't have to be mutually exclusive. Whether or not it appals you that both Hank and Bubba were cheaters doesn't alter the facts of what they did.

Imagine how vicious Obama had to be to blindside her like he did.

I don't want Trump as the nominee; he's not a free-
enterpise man, and has bragged about being un-
principled. (Also, "hypocrisy is the homage that
vice pays to virtue.")--But I would still vote for him
over Hillary Clinton. I still remember her remark in the 1990's, when asked about what Hillarycare
would do to small businesses, she was reported
as saying that it wasn't her job to save "every
small business in the country." In other words,
"Let them eat cake." As a (former) street vendor,
I stilll remember that. I'm not going to say what
I'd like to tell her to eat.

Also, Bethesdagal, I hold my personal happiness as my highest value.

Do you not see that Dagny and Hank were about recognition of value and reality? If anything was immoral, it was Hank's "marriage". His mistake was that he had not divorced her long before Dagny. Hank took a long time to understand what morality is, and he suffered a lot for it. Fidelity means a lot more than who you have sex with. I hope you see that Lillian was never faithful to Hank.
I see people as individuals, and judge them as such. I am appalled at the idea of equating Rearden and Clinton in any way.

Infidelity is infidelity. The exact description of it is immaterial, as to whom puts what where. The debate focuses on whether you value your word (promise of fidelity) over your immediate personal happiness without regard for the collateral damage that self-gratifying choices might create.

It's a part of that "I can't create, but I can destroy those who can create" mindset. Jim Taggart was a good illustration.
Edit: clarity

That is one of the main problems with brain only parasitical humanoids like her...just like islam and that "mindless set" are a pain in our butts since day one.
Our world is dominated by two diametrically opposed paradigms. One with a mind and one without. The without's are parasitical in nature therefore seek power to usurp from the rest of us that can and do create value there by providing a needed quantum order within
creation.

A secret service agent who was assigned to the White House during the Clinton years told me that women were snuck into the Whote House often-for Hillary. He said it was generally known.

I'm sorry, but Dagny didn't suck Rearden off in his office during the workday, or have him stick a cigar up her . Please. I am replying to Bethesda gal. If you think Dagny/Hank is comparable to Clinton/Monica, you've missed the point.

Hillary is not after success; she's after POWER.

I guess sex transcends morality even with objectivists sometimes.

Not quite the same thing............Branden did not request, thus did not receive the consent of Rand or Barbara.

I think Hillary is the opposite kind of woman. I have always detected a vicious and nasty inner Hillary that her handlers are hiding under those smiling pictures of her

Very interesting !. These politicians are like that. She would control every aspect of an appearance for sure

I can deal with The Donald, at least you know where he is coming from. I served in Dirty City under the Clinton regime and personally saw the disdain that they had for the military. Not just the Clinton clan but many in their administration. I will never until my dying day vote for any Democrat because of my time there, especially Hiliary.

Yeah? That's nice and all but I'm talking about something completely different. I love women. I really love them. They're beautiful, smart, have a high pain tolerance for childbirth, superior multi-tasking abilities, many possess an innate sense of kindness I'll never have. They should be cherished. To know that we are opening our borders to cultures that will cut a woman's head off for driving a car or going to school makes me sick. I take direction from women at both of my offices and I love it. To turn the other cheek on these kinds of activities in this day and age is sick...anti-woman, masochistic. And...where's the left? Nothing. Crickets chirping...

As to the first paragraph, it seems I recall something about ash trays and lamps flying across the room. Fly on wall may have gotten squashed!

Sorry, this is truly a very acute point of view. Maybe "leftits" are not very keen on "the late nineteenth century role of women in modern society", but I don´t think that´s anti woman at all. That´s anti "traditional family", and if you come to terms with the world and its circumstances; that has been obliterated long ago. That "stay at home mom" thing is a very agricultural idea, and today women can easily occupy any position on earth. Especially since brawns have been swept aside by technology, so the "muscle" factor has gone pretty much out the window. I mean, what´s next here? "Stay at home men" are anti-masculine at the core?

Times they are a changin´, no doubt about that. Up untill a hundred years back, wars were fought face to face, even with the latest advances in gun powder and all. WW1 brought on the trenches, and well after that we had the famous air raids, submarines and; eventually, the bombs. We´ve changed the way we kill each other, it´s obvious that many other aspects have changed as well. Don´t get me wrong, I´m a sucker for the traditional family myself but...