Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 months, 4 weeks ago
    First a liberal has to admit there are other viewpoints just as valid as their own.
    Second, you'd have to spend money and give them the DVD so they can say later, when they deny the truths, that they didn't spend their" money on the damn thing.
    Lastly, liberals can't ignore the reviews/media, its their collective brain where they get their walking orders from.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      I know someone who took a liberal friend to see AS Part I. Not unexpectedly, the liberal left the theater saying something to the effect, "Huh! THAT would never happen!!!" (speaking, I guess, of the scenario where socialism, if given a free hand, will cause the downfall of civilization as we know it, e.g, the power grid, because nobody is left to do the work, etc...) Liberals live a life where objective reality does not exist, only their Utopian fantasies.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  nickursis 4 months, 3 weeks ago
        Sad to say, a common reaction, as I have had several friends who claim to be "a political" yet stand on the left side of every issue. Their biggest complaint is that the story makes no sense as it is about a railroad, and no one uses railroads anymore. Ack....
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 4 months, 3 weeks ago
          Indeed, what a hoot! They (probably intentionally) gloss over the fact that Ayn Rand wrote her most famous novel over half a century ago, when railroads were far more in the public eye (before the days of the interstate freeways). By the way, rail IS used a lot today for heavy freight (but I guess the libs don't know that either). When they did the movies, I suppose they could have "modernized" the plot to make Taggart Transcontinental into an airline, or a "high-tech" computer company or something along those lines, but at some point, it ceases to be true to the original storyline. I think they did a real fine job of modernizing the story to make it more contemporary, such as showing how inflated gas prices had made rail more attractive (wow, if it took ME $700 to fill up my F150, I might start looking at a train ticket too!). Of course, they overlook the fact that the message endures; in fact, is timeless...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 months, 3 weeks ago
            I agree with KevinS completely. I loved that they didn't modernize it and they didn't hit you over the head with a voiced-over montage backstory explaining why the trains mattered in the story. They just showed someone pay $700 to fill up a tank of gas.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    Ayn Rand has never influenced my views, my morals or my sense of life. She helped me put into words what I already knew. She helped me define my values. I was introduced to Ayn Rand’s philosophy at a very early age by both of my brothers and I fell in love with her immediately. My response to her was “But of course!”.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    I told a liberal friend that he sounded like a villain our of an Ayn Rand novel when he said something that was almost a direct quote of Ellsworth Toohey from "The Fountainhead". He took it as a complement.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      I have just simply removed all hillary supporters from my list of "friends". I gain nothing from friendship with these people, and they take up my time. I would rather Hillary supporters wear an arm band identifying them. It would make my life easier as I would not associate with them, and I would know who my enemies are.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  pixelate 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      Indeed. I had a similar encounter (online) when I outlined the full-spectrum fraud of Obamacare. I also offered some anecdotal evidence that the PPACA is destroying the private medical practice (my own provider had to sell out to a larger mega-hospital because he could no longer afford to pay the compensation packages to the two new employees that were needed simply to handle the PPACA red tape). The modern liberal responded that the main point of Obamacare is to kill the private practice and move to single-payer (like that of the enlightened European Union). I concluded by asserting that the liberal was blinded by their conceit and arrogance.

      Essentially, your modern liberal (progressive) lacks self-awareness. If they could really see who they are, by the implementation of their views and beliefs, and understand the damage that they cause, they would be horrified.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 months, 3 weeks ago
        No they wouldn't be horrified. They would simply repeat the mantra that "you can't have an omelet without breaking eggs." To be oblivious to the damage they cause, progressives would have to lack not only self-awareness but awareness of their entire surroundings. I think most of them know exactly what they are doing.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  rockymountainpirate 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    Good post. +1. This is what I want to see in the Gulch, a philosophical discussion, not another political/religious post.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      Politics = ideology which is a groups philosophy.
      Faith or Religion = people's belief system, their ideology or their life philosophy.

      To bring into discussion matter of politics or mysticism (your word choice, I'm sure) only invites the opportunity to discuss Objectivism's position in those matters. I would think the diversity of current events and how Objectivism fits would be something this site or any objectivist blog would welcome simply to present how relevant Objectivism is in today's events. This is the primary reason I repeatedly say that Ayn Rand was a visionary.

      Personally, I'd much prefer a respectful discussion site to an echo chamber or a bully pulpit. I tend not to stay very long in those places.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  rockymountainpirate 4 months, 3 weeks ago
        I agree with you AJ, except the gulch has fallen into being just another news feed for the conservative/religious right. Not a lot of Objectivism going on. That was my point. I still fondly remember the old Gulch and the lively debates/discussions we used to have. I do miss it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Maritimus 4 months, 3 weeks ago
          Hello, Pirate,
          I agree with you completely.

          The majority of the discussions seems to me off the cuff, superficial discussions of the "news" of the moment. The opinions are stated as "obvious truths", with which no one possibly could disagree and at the same time providing not even a hint of how those opinions are rooted in the basic philosophical principles, Objectivist or not.

          Add to that the fact the religion is, in fact, a dogma, but likes to pretend to be useful as a philosophy (see above). The religious people like to ignore that there a fundamental conflict between the Objectivist philosophy and a religious commitment to sacrifice for a reward in afterlife. Irreconcilable, I think

          Best regards.
          Maritimus
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 4 months, 3 weeks ago
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 4 months, 3 weeks ago
              So what do the religious references and speculation add to the science of the article? It is similar to the ancient alien references on cable where one is to believe that humans could not by themselves get the ideas for their early technology and that it must have been given to them by aliens who traveled from other star systems. Here it must have been some god that got humans to believe in it and thus develop science and to try to be good to each other instead of humans developing forms of individualism and thus finding that it might be possible to trust one another and develop better lives.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Dobrien 4 months, 3 weeks ago
                I was responding to Martimus who above was complaining about submitted posts: "The majority of the discussions seems to me off the cuff, superficial discussions of the "news" of the moment. The opinions are stated as "obvious truths", with which no one possibly could disagree and at the same time providing not even a hint of how those opinions are rooted in the basic philosophical principles, Objectivist or not.

                Add to that the fact the religion is, in fact, a dogma, but likes to pretend to be useful as a philosophy (see above). The religious people like to ignore that there a fundamental conflict between the Objectivist philosophy and a religious commitment to sacrifice for a reward in afterlife. Irreconcilable, I think"

                I went to his submitted posts and this was one of his most recent. To me it appeared that he is the pot calling the kettle black.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 4 months, 3 weeks ago
                  Sorry, I thought that you linked the article because you might have agreed with it.
                  A short comment as to why you posted the link would have helped me to understand whether you considered that article to be objective or that Martimus might have been contradicting other posts of his.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 4 months, 3 weeks ago
                    from the article: "All of this makes it increasingly clear that the models greatly exaggerate the warming effect of carbon dioxide. The models’ errors are not random—as often above as below observed temperatures, and by similar magnitudes—but consistently above observed temperatures, making it apparent that the models are biased. The large and growing divergence between model simulations and observed GAT severely reduces the models’ credibility both for predicting future GAT and for informing policy."
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 4 months, 3 weeks ago
                I think that pirate was speaking to the content and proliferation of types of articles and discussion. I do not see that Martimus strays from the site's stated goals
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  nickursis 4 months, 3 weeks ago
        Excellent point AJ. So much of what is going on has a bearing on the Objectivist viewpoint, but moreover, is almost like material straight out of AS. To ignore it is to put ourselves in the vast un-named public that was the background of the story. I saw so much of today's world in a story written 50 years ago, and yet could easily see how it has been there all along back to before it was written. Yet the things that were "wrong" in the book, are what passes for "normal" in today's world. That is a very scary proposition to me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    Liberals generally refuse to be educated beyond what their propaganda masters tell them. I had a discussion with a socialist, who was dumbfounded when I quoted Karl Marx, Lenin,Trotsky, and Stalin, showing him I knew more about his philosophy than he did. I also have Hitler's Mein Kampf in my library, and his favorite philosopher, Nietsche's Man and Superman (Hitler completely misread that work).

    Those volumes are accompanied by Adam Smith's tomes on capitalism and morality, Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, the Federalist and Antifederalist papers, and a broad spectrum of religious works. I also have all of the military strategy volumes (a result of a 20 year Air Force career), as well as antiwar and anti-military writings. My technical library is extensive as well. You won't find such a collection in a liberal's library.

    My brother in law, who has two technical PhDs, is a serious liberal, but I assumed someone with his education would at least be willing to consider alternative views. No such luck. He quit trying to engage me on points of philosophy and politics, because he said I was "unfair" for relying on facts and logic, instead of feelings. I have little hope you'll have much luck convincing any liberal to watch Atlas Shrugged.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JuliBMe 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    Unfortunately, the liberal thought process isn't based on logic and truth. It is only based on their feelings about themselves and how others see them. The liberals in power don't care about any of their stated "issues" either. They only care about the end result flogging these issues in conveying power to them.

    That Ayn Rand advocated against racism has no meaning for them because her premise starts with freedom for all. That is not what a liberal is about. They want freedom and power for themselves and themselves alone. Flogging the racism issue is only a means to that end. That is why racism can never be "cured".

    As such, it is my layman's observation and opinion that liberalism is a mental disorder that must be studied and classified as such. Megalomaniacs, narcissists, and maybe even, if I may be so harsh, schizophrenics have nothing on liberals.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  nickursis 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      Good points, and you tap on one of the main things I find so wrong with the Liberal philosophy, it is similar, but it says "me first" and nothing about anyone else. If it takes 100 million dead to make me happy, ok. That is a worse philosophy than even a conservative. It is denial and selfish interest, mixed with manipulation and no moral code.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 4 months, 3 weeks ago
        You cannot have a form of "me-ism" and selfishness in the same idea. They are incompatible. Modern liberalism is an adolescent form of wanting to be taken care of as is most conservative-ism where one is cared for by some mythical non-being. It is self interest which causes one to recognize the importance of rights and to have empathy and caring for other selves. The liberals whom I have known, seem to lack an importance of selfishness even though they have done well. Their concerns for others seemed empty of anything other than that they believed that they are doing what they are supposed to do to make a good society. That does not necessarily make them bad people but somewhat pitiable in their mental outlook on individualism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  nickursis 4 months, 3 weeks ago
          Objectivism has a selfish component to it as well, but it is a moral and responsible one, where you do not need to impose yourself on others. I find that Libertarians have that same desire, yet will implement it through means that impose it on others.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 4 months, 4 weeks ago
    The liberals hate Ayn Rand because they are unwilling to see the truth in her philosophy and the hypocritical results of their stated intentions for the greater good.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ProfChuck 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      Rational thinking is hard, ideology is easy. Lib-progs are inherently lazy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 4 months, 3 weeks ago
        The feeling is the driver. Reason be damned.

        "It's good to suffer. Don't complain. Bear, bow, accept—and be grateful that God has made you suffer. For this makes you better than the people who are laughing and happy. If you don't understand this, don't try to understand. Everything bad comes from the mind, because the mind asks too many questions. It is blessed to believe, not to understand. So if you didn't get passing grades, be glad of it. It means that you are better than the smart boys who think too much and too easily."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    I recall AS1 having a strong influence on me. Up until then I had never heard of Ayn Rand (or if I heard the name it went into one dino ear and out the other).
    It was a Christmas gift from a brother who later Santa Claus followed up with A2 and A3
    Now years later my memory of it has become cloudy. Think I'll stick it back into my DVD player tonight should no other distraction present itself.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      Saw it this afternoon. It was lot more scary during the "I want to spread the wealth around" "Let's level the playing field" regime of O the great and powerful with the Evil Hag all lined up in waiting for her entitled coronation. At least I though she'd be queen.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    I had read the book in college (@64-66) just after "The Fountainhead" which a friend had given me. When the 35ft Anniversary Edition showed up as a book club reading selection I bought it and have read both in succession three or four times since then. What struck me first was that actions of Mouch, Ferris, and James Taggart read like the playbook for the Obama administration. Odious regulations, conformity to 'public opinion' (a la Ellsworth Tooey), and equalization (redistribution) of wealth and resources to make things fair, the public good of which the public has no input but the politicians know what's best; "I'm from the government and here to help you!", No thanks. The last is the destruction of those who oppose the above, Hank Reardon, read Donald Trump, for the liberals are still at it. The scary thing in Part II that became reality was when Obama told businesses, "You didn't create that!" They had no right to the exclusivity of their processes or patents, they should be shared by all.
    Part I and Part II caught the essence and spirit of the book, (Part III was a mish-mash on a cheap budget that deviated fo far from the book that I can't..!), I'll even forgive some time-line shifts but miss certain nuances, especially Eddie Willers who opens the story line, acts as the common man caught up in events he has no direct control over but is affected by them, and in the end is looking into the uncertainty by the light of the engine following the tracks which disappear into the uncertain darkness. The tag at the end is only a promise.
    For liberals to watch this would be like holding up a mirror to their souls and they would either turn away or dismiss it conservative propaganda; it is but it was a vision of the future which they made reality. They won't like it because it mostly about people expressing ideas (a real no no), talking; the action is limited to a train wreck, pouring Reardon Metal, and the oil field fire!
    "I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine!" The antithesis of liberal doctrine: the subjucation of individualism, the bending of the will to serve the state, and the abolition of liberty and freedom!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by slfisher 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    Maybe liberals would be more willing to see it if you quit tarring them all with the same brush and assuming they're all alike and hold the same views? I know of many liberals who've read the book and have varying views on it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      Yes, tarring anyone with the same brush is a prejudice unless evidence suggests it is appro po . Characterizing the anti reason aspect of a proponent for a hypocritical philosophy like collectivism or socialism or anyone claiming it is for the "greater good" , they are as an ancient but not yet extinct Dino says libretards.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 months, 4 weeks ago
    I have heard interviews with Shermer on scientific/skepticism podcasts, and I agree with this article.
    "So...liberals, conservatives, progressives, libertarians, Tea Partiers, and politicos of all stripes — ignore the reviews and go see Atlas Shrugged for yourself and tell me what you think. Ayn Rand is not who you’ve heard she is. Read her works, watch the film, and judge for yourself."
    That's so true. His suggest also applies to non-politicos of all stripes. In one of the movies (I can't remember it being in the book) Dagny tells her brother it's amazing how much you can accomplish if you stop playing politics and just roll up your sleeves and get to work.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Snoogoo 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    I was having a discussion about rational self interest with a very left-leaning family member the other day. I made the comment that I believe it to be true that most people on this planet are actually good people and want to leave happy, productive, and honest lives. He was absolutely appalled and perplexed at my "idealism" and declared that he believes in the exact opposite. I thought that was a pretty sad, cynical world view, but it explains everything.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    It would be totally useless for hillary supporters (liberals) to be exposed to Objectivism. Their attraction to collectivism is 100% EMOTIONAL, and has no relation to reason. They should go live in Venezuela or one of the socialist havens and be happy there.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    Amazing article, not to degrade the benefits of Part II, or Part III. Now I'm going to have to go back and review my AS Video's ( I got 'em all) again, just to hear some of those lines that may have just gone over my head the first time. And I just might have to send your link to the few liberal friends I have left the next time they send me some of their biased media links. In fact I might even invite them to a showing at my house. And if they admit that they appreciate it I just might even loan them one of my copies of Atlas Shrugged. I've even got one reel of the film, of which I was supposed to get the rest to have a complete set, but never did.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by TapDogsDad 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    I have a real problem with so-called liberals, referring to themselves as "Liberals." They are NOT! As are most of the folks who comment here, and as are most Conservatives, I am a Liberal! I believe in freedom of thought and expression, in people being free to do what they want, so long as they do not infringe on others' rights. They are NOT free to throw cigarettes out of a car window, etc., etc. - but are free to think and act pretty much as they wish. If you agree with the "Golden Rule," you are a liberal. Many refer to the fascists who shut down free speech at Berkeley as "Liberals." REALLY?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TapDogsDad 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      PS: Why do we allow them to confiscate a very nice word.... that doesn't even come close to describing the left. Send them all to Venezuela for and education, instead of the Universities!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Maritimus 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    Hello, K,

    Great contribution. Thank you. I will save it in my files for then being able to hand it out as a lesson for people who attack AR without ever having read a line from her writings.

    Thanks, again. All the best to you.

    Sincerely,
    Maritimius
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dukerone 4 months, 3 weeks ago
    I'm a liberal and have read Atlas Shrugged twice and own all the DVD's. The problem I have with conservatives is that they are not objective at all. I don't think Ayn would agree with their lack of reason. Where are all the real thinkers? For instance, trickle down economics has never worked, yet the Republicans are at it again. Second, people need to have money in their pocket to spend so they buy things and companies have to hire more people. Thus raising the minimum wage is a good idea.

    I'm not for socialism, but the military is where we spend most of our money and that is true socialism The government owns every tank, gun, and bomb etc.

    Objectivism to me is being objective and too often our politicians and Ayn Rand supporters are not objective at all. She would be ashamed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      Among other things, Objectivism stands for the right of individuals to freely trade goods and services with each other, and opposes the use of government force to interfere in peaceful commercial transactions. For this and many other reasons, raising the minimum wage is not a good idea.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 4 months, 3 weeks ago
      Just for a long extended moment, think about some of what you wrote. Where might the money come from by not letting the market determine wage rates with respect to the worker's abilities and the results of artificially raising those rates by the use of law (ultimately by force and if necessary by guns)? Rand did write against conservatives. Find out what socialism is and the necessity for the military. Not all guns are owned by the government. Any idea what it means "to be objective" ?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo