Good thread. Some excellent discourse. As usual I find myself in total disagreement with the definition of progress as defined by the progressives. I agree with LS. "Successes and Limitations..." generally the problem is that there were not more limitations.

Very interesting read, Stormi. Hillary now would say, "What difference does it make"? just like she did about Benghazi.

Up until 1895, one could argue that all three belonged in the Gulch and were champions of capitalism. Most people, like Rearden, grow weary of all the looters and moochers, and then veer from the Galtish path. It is like being attacked by a plague of locusts.

After that, at best only Carnegie belonged there, and as straightlinelogic argues, they strayed from the path.

This should be a lesson learned from both the book and from real life.

I found the link to the article I have saved on my PC:
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/05/09/hi...
Says a lot about backroom dealing in politics, and about how early Hillary learned to mislead.

Of the three, Andrew Carnegie probably went off the Galt path the least. As far as I know, after he sold Carnegie Steel to Morgan, he spent the rest of his life giving away his money. JP Morgan and Rockefeller were prime movers behind the Federal Reserve and the income tax, which would get both of them kicked out of Galt's Gulch. Neither man could be called a champion of capitalism, and both used the government to tilt the playing field in their favor. Of course, books have been written and the Internet is filled with various allegations about Rockefeller's sub rosa activities and world government designs. Both Rockefeller and Morgan make appearances in my book, The Golden Pinnacle, a novel set during the Industrial Revolution.

Then they can come to my university, where such tripe is not looked upon favorably.

But of course, as if, say, some student had the wrong ideas, say a non-socialist anti-apologist viewpoint, regarding, well, for example, the stono rebellion, it would be a way for the proctors to insure only those with the proper and right-thinking attitude progressed into the hallowed halls of higher education...

I guess the looters and moochers won that one. That was their endowment.

Unfortunately, the sins of the fathers follow and continue via the Foundation. They continue in the wrong direction.

Looter Sen. Jay Rockefeller talks disparagingly about his forefather (a Galt or Rearden if there ever was one). I guess that makes Jay kind of like Phillip Rearden in my Atlas Shrugged: Now Non-Fiction cast.

I knew that Hillary was involved in the case, but I didn't realize that she had manipulated both law and evidence. Do you have or remember any details? Isn't it remarkable that none of that came out during her last campaign? Probably not.

To be fair, the cheat sheets are to ensure uniformity in scoring. Uniformity as in stormtroopers-like uniformity that is.

The expected answers are at

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/me...

It's not a bad exercise to determine if the candidate can actually construct a well-written argument versus a pile of anti-grammatical space filler (from years of getting rewarded fully for "at least trying", even if they got it totally wrong)...

They're all fairly interestingly worded questions... even more interesting especially since it assume those who will be scoring the questions have such little knowledge about any of the aforementioned historical occasions they must include "cheat sheets" to score them.

>=~(

Have you noticed that the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations are always the financial backing behind all progressive movement to this day? Every wrong headed school reform has had their backing. There are producers and then their is oligarchy and manipulation.

I could not stand Nixon, however, Watergate was more complicated than it is usually reported. Don't overlook Jerry Ziefman's reports that Hillary's role in the Watergate investigation was "ethically flawed" - and had an impact on the outcome. Working on her own, not reporting to Ziefman, she manipulated both law and evidence.

they all get caught. it's the rule of law applied that fails most of the time

Nixon was dumb enough to get caught. Does that make it worse?!

he was the typical ruling party member. blue/red made NO difference. he was listening to little birds who were big players. he was looking at his personal endgame and was weak and puling

that is just being a crook. I guess I consider most regressive politicians crooks, so go ahead and add that to the list ;)

That is a pretty bad track record for Nixon, other than what he did in China. Khalling, of course, neglected the obvious: Watergate.

1. price controls
2. took us off the gold standard
3."we're all Kenysians now"
4. created the EPA