|
thorne
Deleted
Jan 6, 2006, 1:57 PM
Post #51 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: People voted for Bush because things (the economy, mostly) were so good during Clinton, that they became lazy and forgot how bad things became with the last Republican in office.
In reply to: Also, the majority never voted for bush.
You're not really getting a PhD in Engineering, are you?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 6, 2006, 3:16 PM
Post #52 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Read Ayn Rand. This nation isn't based on "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
It certainly isn't based on the most boring book of all time either. That bitch had no vagina, just a smooth plastic lump where her genitals belonged.
Which, not ironically, is exactly how her political views translate to the REAL WORLD. A fax of life, cold and inhuman at the core. I'm pretty sure she was a reptile.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jan 6, 2006, 3:21 PM
Post #53 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: Read Ayn Rand. This nation isn't based on "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It certainly isn't based on the most boring book of all time either. That b---- had no vagina, just a smooth plastic lump where her genitals belonged. Which, not ironically, is exactly how her political views translate to the REAL WORLD. A fax of life, cold and inhuman at the core. I'm pretty sure she was a reptile. DMT
You sound bitter.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 6, 2006, 3:37 PM
Post #54 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Read Ayn Rand. This nation isn't based on "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It certainly isn't based on the most boring book of all time either. That b---- had no vagina, just a smooth plastic lump where her genitals belonged. Which, not ironically, is exactly how her political views translate to the REAL WORLD. A fax of life, cold and inhuman at the core. I'm pretty sure she was a reptile. DMT You sound bitter.
After 700 pages of Atlas Shrugged you're damned RIGHT I was bitter! Weren't you???
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jan 6, 2006, 3:49 PM
Post #55 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Read Ayn Rand. This nation isn't based on "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It certainly isn't based on the most boring book of all time either. That b---- had no vagina, just a smooth plastic lump where her genitals belonged. Which, not ironically, is exactly how her political views translate to the REAL WORLD. A fax of life, cold and inhuman at the core. I'm pretty sure she was a reptile. DMT You sound bitter. After 700 pages of Atlas Shrugged you're damned RIGHT I was bitter! Weren't you??? DMT
Never bothered. :wink: But I have a fair understanding of Objectivism and think it's an excellent philosophy, although it's pretty lacking in the compassion department.
Right now I'm reading this http://www.amazon.com/...18?v=glance&n=283155. I hope I'm not bitter afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
degaine
Jan 6, 2006, 3:52 PM
Post #56 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2003
Posts: 491
|
In reply to: In reply to: Read Ayn Rand. This nation isn't based on "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It certainly isn't based on the most boring book of all time either. That b---- had no vagina, just a smooth plastic lump where her genitals belonged. Which, not ironically, is exactly how her political views translate to the REAL WORLD. A fax of life, cold and inhuman at the core. I'm pretty sure she was a reptile. DMT
Bolded by me.
Ironic you should write that. After tens of recommendations from friends to read one of her books, I picked up "Atlas Shrugged," fell asleep after page 2, and have never picked it up since.
Based on your post, I guess I consider myself lucky!
|
|
|
|
|
ein_berliner
Jan 6, 2006, 4:00 PM
Post #57 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 21
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Read Ayn Rand. This nation isn't based on "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It certainly isn't based on the most boring book of all time either. That b---- had no vagina, just a smooth plastic lump where her genitals belonged. Which, not ironically, is exactly how her political views translate to the REAL WORLD. A fax of life, cold and inhuman at the core. I'm pretty sure she was a reptile. DMT Bolded by me. Ironic you should write that. After tens of recommendations from friends to read one of her books, I picked up "Atlas Shrugged," fell asleep after page 2, and have never picked it up since. Based on your post, I guess I consider myself lucky!
You philistines. I didn't find the book boring at all. Neither did I find the Fountainhead boring. Read more classic literature! Then you can act pompous and knowledgeable like me!
I reject anything about boring and Ayn Rand...her being a reptile, however...that may have been possible. She was cold and calculating, but then why not. How many tycoons have had hearts of gold anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 6, 2006, 6:26 PM
Post #59 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again. Atlas shrugged, nay, all of Rands work, nicely made her central point in the first 50 pages or so. And then made the same point again and again and again, often with diatribes longer than the book itself. Then the next 50 pages started over, restating the same point and then made it again and again and again.
Sorta like that. I eventually shrugged.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Jan 6, 2006, 6:55 PM
Post #60 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
"dingus shrugged, nay, ALL... of... ... dingus *yawn*.... work...zzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZzzzZZZZZzzzzzz*snort*..."
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Jan 6, 2006, 8:53 PM
Post #61 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
Oooo some more stuff for the conservatives among you to counter with various forms of illogic:
-I've noticed that a lot of people claim that if you believe in fairness, justice, and essentially communism, then you're a naive hippy with his head in his ass.
Though I may be a naive hippy, you must admit that you've gotta be at least a little naive to think that a president who doesn't respect your constitutional rights has your, or anyone's (i.e. iraqi's) best interests in mind by going to war. (I'm reminded of his open press conference the other day, where when asked how many Iraqi civilians have died, his reply was a nanchalant estimate of "Um, perhaps 30,000" as if he were estimating how much money he spent on his last car. No show of remorse, regret, or even the slightest hint of emotion: just business as usual. Would this frighten you if he was talking about American deaths?)
-I've also noticed that most people with republican viewpoints may be intellectually capable or even genius, but lack creativity and imagination to a large degree. They also can't imagine the hardships of other people, or have any empathy towards those that suffer; "as long as my hands are clean, it doesn't effect me". But then, when it comes to saving Iraqi's from the hardships of living in a country run by a dictator, they are all over it.
And I will refer to Bush as "president Bush" or "mr President" when you show me the COMPLETE recounts from the last two elections, and a FULL, UNINHIBITED, BIPARTISAN investigation into the electronic voting machine scandal.
Did you know that NBC is investigating the fact that Bush has been spying on news reporters? Of course, they will not be breaking the news until they finish the investigation.
Ever seen the movie "Wag the Dog"? Just wait until we invade Iran...Will you believe me then? Of course not, you'll still be accepting every word of Bush's bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jan 6, 2006, 9:08 PM
Post #62 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
ck,
You crack me up. It's not your leftward bias that gets my attention, but rather your seemingly ability to ignore so many obvious, relevant facts when you make your case.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Jan 6, 2006, 9:54 PM
Post #63 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
Wow! Dingus has a lot of free time.
I was thinking about the title to this thread, about the government trying to fuck us over again. When did they fuck us over the first time?
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Jan 6, 2006, 9:56 PM
Post #64 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
wjca wrote:
In reply to: Wow! Dingus has a lot of free time. I was thinking about the title to this thread, about the government trying to f--- us over again. When did they f--- us over the first time?
....every April 15th....duh!!
|
|
|
|
|
schmidty06
Jan 6, 2006, 11:10 PM
Post #65 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Posts: 39
|
I have a feeling that a reason behind the economy being so "good" while President Clinton was in office was because he cut the military in half and put the extra money into welfare so nobody had to work for their money. And whether you like it or not, this war that we're in proves that such a cut back was a major mistake because now we're over working our military personnel.
|
|
|
|
|
remi
Jan 6, 2006, 11:10 PM
Post #66 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 3, 2005
Posts: 424
|
In reply to: -I've also noticed that most people with republican viewpoints may be intellectually capable or even genius, but lack creativity and imagination to a large degree. They also can't imagine the hardships of other people, or have any empathy towards those that suffer; "as long as my hands are clean, it doesn't effect me". But then, when it comes to saving Iraqi's from the hardships of living in a country run by a dictator, they are all over it.
you wield a very wide brush! :) How many Che Guevara t-shirts do you own?
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Jan 7, 2006, 9:01 AM
Post #67 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
There's always a way to twist facts such that they meet your personal viewpoints. If it makes you feel better about supporting Bush to blame Clinton for all of his problems, then go right ahead.
While your at it, why not blame the constitution for getting in Bush's way of saving us all from the terrorists that lurk on every roadside and airport of our nation? I definitely think that in times of war, every single Constitutional right should be considered null and void, all in the name of protecting us from ourselves.
THE WAR WAS NOT NEEDED IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT WAS ALL LIES. LET GO, MOVE ON, AND PERHAPS YOU MAY REDEEM YOURSELF BY HELPING GET RID OF THE ASSHOLE.
Honestly, I'm perfectly willing to forgive anyone that previously supported Bush, so long as they admit that THEY HAVE BEEN DEVEIVED and that it was not their fault. Oh yeah, they also have to pledge to NEVER VOTE IN ANY ELECTION, EVER AGAIN. (just kidding about the last one, but it's not a bad idea!)
|
|
|
|
|
ein_berliner
Jan 7, 2006, 10:27 AM
Post #68 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 21
|
For one, death counts for the "enemy" or even our allies has never registered much concern with the American public. Can you tell me the last time anyone was mad about Vietnam because of the ENORMOUS body count that piled up for the North Vietnamese. Nope, you can't. How about Korean war? no...??? Well, then WWII then. Surely we cared how many Japs and Krauts died... no?! Well, then Desert Storm must have been when the American people of all creeds and levels of liberalism were concerned. Not there either?!! That's CRAZY. How about Afghanistan? nope! Ah well, maybe Bush doesn't know exact numbers because the American concensus is that the population (i.e. YOU) don't really care.
It's never been a point of contention that we are killing too many Iraqis. There are tributes to our soldiers on CNN and we have a melodramatic mother wandering around the country wailing about her son and OUR troops, but no really too concerned about the Iraqis.
Most of the things you have said have been ideas that are not supported in any way. To say that Conservatives don't have imagination? What kind of an assertion is that?! And no war was necessary? Interesting, I bet you supported the invasion of Afghanistan! Even if you didn't, I doubt you were in the streets opposing it.
Now the allegations of misuse of the Executive power to spy or tap into American's lives...that may be a problem. I don't support large bends in our constitutional rights to ensure our safety. It just isn't worth it. But you will notice that that kind of thing took place with Nixon and others. Not saying it's right, just saying that we've been there.
As far as agreeing with Bush? No, I'm not thrilled with the war in Iraq, not thrilled to be headed over there. But you know, I will. Because it's what I said I'd do. AND, regardless of the beginnning there still has to be an ending put in place so we don't dick over our allies like we did to the South Vietnamese.
|
|
|
|
|
ein_berliner
Jan 7, 2006, 10:33 AM
Post #69 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 21
|
On Ayn Rand. The poster that gave the full length reply...I think he said he didn't finish the book...which makes his views rather suspect. Yes she reiterates her ideas multiple times, but the only unbearable chapter is toward the end of the book, and I doubt you got that far.
As far as Roarke being unable to handle the creativity he wielded in the book, I doubt that's true. I am, and have met many other very logical, math based people that have great aesthetic talents in art and designing. To say that his character prohibits him from accomplishments is rather ridiculous. The reptilian qualities of Rand were directed at her philosophy presented mainly in Atlas Shrugged. She's a humanist in large part (part of the objectivism slant). I think much of her characters's personalities are a reflection only of her philosophy. They are symbolic representation of people. Someone like them may exist, but they are extremes. That's what makes characters interesting. I wouldn't read a book based off of the majority of the people that post on this forum.....just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 7, 2006, 2:36 PM
Post #70 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I read like 700 pages unbelievably. Its just, I kept wading through these long winded diatribes, waiting for a shoe to drop, anything! She paints a vivid image of her cold, sterile downward spiraling world. But unfortunately, she uses all those words to guild the image; as a story teller? Yawn....
I picked it up, looked at it and realized I didn't care if that gray and dreary world ground to a halt or not. I lost all empathy toward the characters, much as Ayn Rand herself lost all empathy toward humans, lol.
Its been that way with a few other novels, I get most of the way through only to say, anyway.
I'm pretty much done with an author when that happens.
Cheers though
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
crankinv9
Jan 7, 2006, 5:52 PM
Post #71 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 713
|
In reply to: ck, You crack me up. It's not your leftward bias that gets my attention, but rather your seemingly ability to ignore so many obvious, relevant facts when you make your case.
Doesn't your statment apply to most posters here? Just interchange leftward/rightward and you have a whole host of characters that spend their cubicle time in this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Jan 7, 2006, 7:42 PM
Post #72 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
Thank you, Crankin.
If people on the extreme right can twist facts and use whatever non-evidence they want to support their views, then so can I.
The only difference is that there are people on television that do this (on the right), but I'm not aware of any extreme left television shows (although Jon Stewart is close, but I wouldn't say he's an extremist in any way).
I'm reminded of Bill Oreilly and his "war on Christmas".
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Jan 7, 2006, 10:41 PM
Post #73 of 73
(1412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: Though I may be a naive hippy, you must admit that you've gotta be at least a little naive to think that a president who doesn't respect your constitutional rights has your, or anyone's (i.e. iraqi's) best interests in mind...
...period.
dude, see, your frame of reference betrays your youth, and for those of us who's voting career can be measured in multiple decades, it's sorta funny to read the points you're making, as though they were original ideas, or somehow not a constant and established political gestalt, that can be argued to be common to all political eras, and administrations, only varying by small degrees.
Now, this doesn't mean your attitudes aren't arguably valid, (though they ignore the immense and intractible entrenchment of the american two party political system...for your ideas to work, that has to be dismantled. Good luck) it just means that we've heard them all before, rehashed and hashlike. also, there is some truth to the aphorism regarding a person being politically liberal as a student, and one in the working, adult world, winding up being pressured into political conservatism. If that happens to you, you certainly wouldn't be the first.
Calling you a hippy for it, has nothing to do with whether I am personally politically conservative or liberal, and more to do with just guiving you shit for blathering on about a stereotypical political attitude...because you're young. ;-) BTW, one of your funnier assertions is that so many of useresponding are "conservatives" HAW. you have NO idea how wrong you actually are.
we're just giving you shit. because you're young.
you smelly hippy. actually, you're not even a real hippy, I grew up with real hippies, and you sir, are no hippy.
see, it just makes me laugh. you smelly hippy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
