Originally posted by jennypie
That's funny, because when I picked up Atlas Shrugged I was determined to hate it, and her. After 3 pages I was in love (with the book).
The book is an interesting read (though not quite what The Fountainhead was), but honestly, how can people think this is a practical philosophy?
infinity HiGH
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
maybe one day, when my young hatred of her has died down. im not sure how many pages i could get through though, she makes me so angry.
LOL thats funny cause Atlas Shrugged is like 1200 pages and the font is like this small
MrJiveBoJingles
The movie (well, the first part anyway) has now been made:
Comes out in the U.S. on April 15, Tax Day of course. :p
Silky Johnson
Can't wait to see it. :)
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by 15step
The book is an interesting read (though not quite what The Fountainhead was), but honestly, how can people think this is a practical philosophy?
Little philosophical training can do wonders.
Lebezniatnikov
The National Review is basically the intellectual center of the conservative movement, and their takedown of Atlas Shrugged in 1957 is amazing:
quote:
Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!”
Their contemporary update is pretty entertaining as well:
quote:
It happens that an important looter — Rand’s term for the half-wits running and ruining the country — is on the train and has strong feelings about getting to San Francisco. His name is Kip Chalmers. “It’s not my problem to figure out how you get the train through the tunnel, that’s for you to figure out!” Kip Chalmers screams at a station agent. “But if you don’t get me an engine and don’t start that train, you can kiss good-bye to your jobs, your work permits and this whole goddamn railroad!”
This is persuasive. “The station agent had never heard of Kip Chalmers and did not know the nature of his position. But he knew that this was the day when unknown men in undefined positions held unlimited power — the power of life or death.” And so the station officials, knowing that the loss of their jobs means the loss of their lives, call in a coal engine, procure a drunken engineer, and condemn every passenger on the train to death by asphyxiation.
But that isn’t why I stopped reading. I stopped because Rand thinks they deserve it.
quote:
It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet [that’s the train] were not guilty [note that word] or responsible for the thing that happened to them.
The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence. . . .
. . . The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, “I don’t care, it’s only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.” . . .
. . . These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas.
Also, am I the only one who has the impression that all current movie trailers are cut and composed by a single guy with ADHD?
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
The National Review is basically the intellectual center of the conservative movement, and their takedown of Atlas Shrugged in 1957 is amazing:
let's not forget how different the Democrats were back then too:
John F. Kennedy, December 14th, 1962:
quote:
This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are higher. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.
;)
Sounds like today's Conservatives, eh?
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
Also, am I the only one who has the impression that all current movie trailers are cut and composed by a single guy with ADHD?
My bad. I get a little carried away when I do that, sorry :(
Meat187
Stop lying Lira, your style would easily be recognizable by the abundance of boobs.
I'm guessing this is your work, though:
Lira
:wtf: :stongue:
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Sounds like today's Conservatives, eh?
Yeah, all he’s missing are massive spending increases to coincide with the tax cuts.
