Utopia Talk / Politics / OT - ATLAS SHRUGGED

Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 20:40:31 Has been completed and is set for release on April 15, 2011. Looks like it is well cast. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
Nimatzo Member	Mon Jan 24 20:52:47 Ehh? What? Not a single well known actor and the director happens to also play John Galt and his greatest achievement acting wise and directing wise has been... ONE TREE HILL! Game over.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 20:58:08 I don't know any of the actors either, but if you match the face to the character they look the part. What worries me most is the small $15 Milliuon budget and the limited release.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 24 21:18:00 of course it is small budget/limited release. You think fucking hollywood would possibly give big funds to a movie about capitalism?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 21:20:35 No, but that does nothing to allay my fears. Check out the other thread, 'From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years'
Madc0w Member	Mon Jan 24 21:28:08 Well, at least in a movie you don't have to deal with horrible prose.
Aeros Member	Mon Jan 24 21:30:41 "You think fucking hollywood would possibly give big funds to a movie about capitalism?" Capitalism /= Objectivism. Capitalism is a method of making money through markets. Objectivism is a system of morality based upon capitalist principles, where moral decisions are based on their net benefit to the individual. Jesus Rod, the fact that I'm having to tell you this is pretty bad.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jan 24 22:18:43 Aeros, Objectivism is not just a morality it is a fully developed philosophical treatise. It is not based on capitalism. Lassiez Faire capitalism is the economic system suitable to the principles of her philosophy.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Jan 24 22:21:40 "it is a fully developed philosophical treatise." excellent quote for more lulz. Thanks.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Jan 24 22:28:08 "It is not based on capitalism. Lassiez Faire capitalism is the economic system suitable to the principles of her philosophy." Oh, this will be fun. Pedo Rod, please enlighten us as to the difference between capitalism and "laissez-faire capitalism."
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 02:12:37 "of course it is small budget/limited release. You think fucking hollywood would possibly give big funds to a movie about capitalism?" Incorrect, plenty of heavy hitters tried. http://www...5943490-O3muLRUn3BpyASMmFYH4yQ
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 06:39:46 ttt
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 08:02:35 "BACK in the 1970s Albert S. Ruddy, the producer of “The Godfather,” first approached Ayn Rand to make a movie of her novel “Atlas Shrugged.” But Rand, who had fled the Soviet Union and gone on to inspire capitalists and egoists everywhere, worried aloud, apparently in all seriousness, that the Soviets might try to take over Paramount to block the project. “I told her, ‘The Russians aren’t that desperate to wreck your book,’ ” Mr. Ruddy recalled in a recent interview. " fun
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 08:15:12 Makes you wonder who knew the Soviet mind better. Rand, a Russian who lived under the Soviets for nine years or Ruddy a Hollywood producer?
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 08:16:43 Soviets wanted to sabotage the making of AS? roflmao
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 08:59:48 I guess you are through wondering. Try reading 'We The Living' sometime. It takes place in Russia during the years she lived there.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 09:00:45 Oh, and it not a heave philosophical work. It is just a novel.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 09:03:42 stfu, you cretinous dildo. I mean, really. RoB has a better CTs, go learn something from him. The Godfather producer must have laughed his ass off, upon hearing that vile old loon. "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." â?? John Rogers
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 09:09:03 I will take that as your admissiobn that you have lost the argument since all you have left is an ad hominem flame.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 09:10:38 Yeah, you might want to come up with an argument first.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 09:14:14 I did and you were unable to respond intelligently. "Makes you wonder who knew the Soviet mind better. Rand, a Russian who lived under the Soviets for nine years or Ruddy a Hollywood producer?"
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 09:18:23 What is the argument? That Rand knew the Soviet mind better because she lived there? I just want to understand.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 09:21:29 It certainly sounds reasonable to me. "Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism..." Tell us about Ruddy's expert credentials concering the Soviet mindset?
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 09:24:45 "Tell us about Ruddy's expert credentials concering the Soviet mindset? " I presume he had none.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 09:26:15 Then I think that resolves the argument. Right or wrong at least Rand had a foundation for her remark.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 09:31:32 "Right or wrong at least Rand had a foundation for her remark. " Well, wrong is too mild. Retarded, paranoid and senile. Thats more like it. I also like your new line, Rod. Basically one is able peddle any crazy shit he wants, but as long as he is an "expert". "Expert" apparently just means that the person spoting crazy shit had more experise that the person who is astounded by the crazy claim.
Aeros Member	Tue Jan 25 09:47:29 Rand was a little girl when her family left the Soviet Union.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 09:50:05 No, she went to university, she was not a child. She should have probably paid the Soviets for her free education.
Aeros Member	Tue Jan 25 09:56:11 Hmm, I always thought she was a Middle Schooler or some such when she left. Regardless, she was very good at pointing out the failings of communism. I will give her that. Unfortunately, her solution was to embrace the greatest failings of Capitalism as the logical counterpoint. This too, is not uncommon. But when she started to take those ideas and build an entire philosophical morality, she entered crazy land. Also, Nietzsche would have called her a plagiarizing cunt who bastardized his work, and as consequence needed to be raped by a stronger male. Incidentally, she might have liked it.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 10:05:37 Aeros - Rand was a little girl when her family left the Soviet Union. 20 years old is hardly a 'little girl'. 1905 Born in St. Petersburg (February 2; or, January 20 on the Julian calendar) 1911 Teaches self to read 1912 Family moves to an apartment on Nevsky Prospekt at Znamenskaya Square 1913 Attends first motion picture exhibition in St. Petersburg 1914 Reads first romantic fiction, The Mysterious Valley; decides to become a writer 1917 Witnesses first shots of February revolution 1918 Discovers writings of Victor Hugo To escape civil war, family moves to Ukraine (fall) and then Yevpatoria, Crimea (spring) 1920 Discovers Aristotleâ??s works in high school 1921 Graduates from Yevpatoria High School #4 (June 30) Family returns to Petrograd Enrolls in Petrograd State University (circa August 24) Discovers the works of Nietzsche (1921â??22) 1924 Discovers Viennese operettas Graduates from Leningrad State University (October 13) Enrolls in State Technicum for Screen Arts (October 15) 1925 â??Pola Negriâ?? pamphlet published in Moscow and Leningrad Receives permission to leave USSR (October 29) http://www...bout_ayn_rand_aynrand_timeline
Aeros Member	Tue Jan 25 10:12:44 Why did you waste your time with that post? CR already set me straight. Why don't you adjust your argument to try and defend our claims that Objectivism is an infantile bastardization of Nietzsche.
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 10:39:16 You forgot conceived out of wedlock and her *GAINING A VISA, THEN CITIZENSHIP ON FALSE PREMISES* She came for a visit, then stayed until *GIVEN* citizenship by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. How does that differ from any illegal overstaying his/her visa and awaiting amnesty?
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 10:40:13 Yes Rod, how?
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 10:41:00 Google Rand + citizenship. You will see that a lot of her writing concerns justifying why the wrong she did was in fact right. Her thoughts just as applicable to any wetneck as to herself.
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 10:45:34 Rod, why not apply her "objectivism" to help you understand immigration policy? The only rational and egotistical choice facing a wet neck is how to get into the US most effectively and amassing wealth most efficiently. IIRC, then "La rebelion del atlas" is used by border coyotes as an 1000-page long promotional brochure to garner business.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 11:37:18 Aeros, after CR's rant I didn't pay a lot of attention to him except to correct him about my argument. jergul, I read several articles about her arrival in The States, none of them say anything abiout her being illegal. Only that she had relatives in both New York and Chicago and that she became an American Citizen in 1931. Can you please source your claim?
Aeros Member	Tue Jan 25 11:50:37 Source what claim? That Rand is a bad philosopher ripping off of Nietzsche to create a juvenile moral system? That is common knowledge to anyone who has made a passing study of Philosophy. Since you are claiming to be an Objectivist, this should be something you are already aware of.
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 11:55:35 She arrived on a visitors visa Hot Rod. Took her first illegal job as "movie extra by Cecil B. DeMille" months after arriving. A visa precludes her arrival as an immigrant under the quota laws passed at the time. Her arrival to visit her family was legal enough. It became illegal when she decided to stay and work in your country. De facto amnesty in 1931 gave her citizenship. A classic example of objectivism in practice. New arrivals without proper documentation would do well to read "La rebelion del atlas". From a Objectivism perspective, the only thing wrong with immigration now are the border controls. Typical of government trying to overcome crisis of its own making by seeking to block individuals from prospering.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 11:59:05 Aero's, why don't you go back and read jerhul's and my posts? You keep repeating that, I know nothing of Nietzsche. Not even what he called his philosophy. Can you give me a synopsis?
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 12:04:45 Here is the loophole she used btw: "While working on The King of Kings, she intentionally bumped into an aspiring young actor, Frank O'Connor, who caught her eye. The two were married on April 15, 1929. Rand became an American citizen in 1931." Caught her eye. What a cool euphemism for "gaining citizenship". Quite rational and egotistical. As per Objectivism.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 12:09:41 She liked his face and even considered using it on a book cover. So you are saying, without proof, that she lived in America for three years as an illegal. Sure you don't have a source for that?
Rugian Member	Tue Jan 25 12:10:19 "This group (jokingly designated "The Collective") included future Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, a young psychology student named Nathan Blumenthal (later Nathaniel Branden) and his wife Barbara, and Barbara's cousin Leonard Peikoff. At first the group was an informal gathering of friends who met with Rand on weekends at her apartment to discuss philosophy. Later she began allowing them to read the drafts of her new novel, Atlas Shrugged, as the manuscript pages were written. In 1954 Rand's close relationship with the much younger Nathaniel Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses." Kinky.
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 12:14:15 Did she arrive on a visitors visa or did she arrive as a quota immigrant hot rod? You will find that she arrived on a visa, not as a quota immigrant. She did not become illegal until she started working of course. Am not sure when her visa expired, but certainly before 5 years had passed. Page 406 of Atlas Shrugged outlines why she thinks Government is served by creating criminals of honest men by way of legislation. 10 million criminals of honest men and women by way of immigration "crimes" is the current estimate is it not?
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 12:16:41 "In 1954 Rand's close relationship with the much younger Nathaniel Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses." I believe she went crazy when Branden later started to fuck some much younger woman. Which is strange, because his decision was very Objective, if you ask me.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 12:20:33 ahahahaha, the movie about Branden objectively leaving Rand for the younger one WAS made, unlike AS. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140447/
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 12:24:17 jergul - Did she arrive on a visitors visa or did she arrive as a quota immigrant hot rod? You will find that she arrived on a visa, not as a quota immigrant. That is what I am asking you, I have not been able to find what she used to enter this country. Was it a working visa? Did she have a green card or it's equivalent of the day. You seem very emphatic that she was an illegal so I can only assume that you have a source for that claim. Or should I assume that you do not have a source because one does not exist. CR, why don't you go sober up, you are contributing nothing but smut to the conversation.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Jan 25 12:26:26 I only wish I was drunk. Do you think discussing Ayn Rand is my idea of fun? Actually, this one is funny, I'll take it back.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 12:27:12 All I have found mention of is the exit visa she obtained to leave Russia.
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 12:36:27 Green card did not exist. Nor did a working visa beyond that for diplomatic staff of foreign countries. Legal employment possible only through immigration under the quota immigration act. Rand arrived on a visa to visit relatives and started working illegally soon thereafter. The visa would have expired before the 5 years passed. I have never heard anyone claim she normalized her immigration status before she got married and used that as the basis for citizenship. But do feel free to document her transition from a visa visitor to a quota immigrant. Her writing is very clear on what she thinks of nuisance laws. I refer you to page 406 of "La rebelion del atlas"
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 12:42:51 http://aynrandlexicon.com/about-ayn-rand/bio.html There you go Hot Rod. She got an extension on her 6 month visa once in 1926.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 12:45:20 jergul, if your claim is indeed true perhaps she was just listening to the words of Ben Franklin. :) God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say, This is my country. ~ Benjamin Franklin
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 12:50:46 Hot Rod If you follow her teachings, then you will see it is inconsistent with your thoughts on immigration. The only thing wrong with immigration now is the laws that forbid it and the fences that block it.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 12:53:29 So where does it say that she did not renew her visa again and again or even changed her status to something more permanent. She was by no means stupid. She wanted to be in America and she had a regular job working for DeMille. Why would she jeopardize that. Sorry, you have not convinced me that she broke any laws. Don't forget, immigration rules were a lot looser back then. Perhaps renewing her visa was a really simple matter.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 12:56:58 jergul, I have always thought that in a Libertarian World there would be no boundaries for anyone. There would be no need, but obviously we do not live in such a world. My position on immigration in today's world is based on Rational Self-Interest for my country.
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 13:03:31 Hot Rod She did change it to something more permanent by getting citizenship through marriage. She became illegal the moment she started working Hot Rod. Which would be in her extension period. Moving to a new state is the measure she took to avoid having to have the visa renewed again. The point of her teachings are that immigration laws pestering her are ultimately immoral and make criminals of honest men and women. She felt no moral obligation to follow such laws as her teachings document. And once she moved to California there would be no need to follow them either. The only real threat would be arrest under other charges and a fuller investigation revealing visa expiration and illegal employment. But she did rush to get married. Rather uncharacteristic really - for a woman not overly anchored to matrimonial sanctity as documented by Rugian. So we can clearly conclude the marriage was one of practicality - even though she did find what she thought was a pretty face.
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 13:05:49 Your position is inconsistent with Rand's teachings. Petty laws making criminals of honest men. See page 406 for the motivations of "Rational Self-Interest for my country" "Rational Self-Interest for my country" being as good a term as any for strong government.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 13:06:51 Besides, I don't think that is the kind of laws she is talkig about. It is said that Microsoft and Apple Computers could not get off the ground today, the way they were developed, because of today's more restrictive laws. Then there are laws like no texting while yuou are doing anything else, including walking.
NeverWoods Member	Tue Jan 25 13:18:52 Right... Perhaps you should look at apples history, they were nearly bankrupt just a few years back ;)
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 13:21:12 She was quite clear that she is against laws that make criminals of honest men. Immigration being one of them. An Objectionist Mexican would be acting in harmony with his philosophy if he served his rational interests by coming and staying in the US like Rand did. The only problem would be petty laws turning him into a criminal. Honest people turned into criminals number more than 10 million. Rands point on Microsoft etc would be that government would take them over. You really should read "La rebelion del atlas" so you understand her teachings better.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 13:22:50 jergul - She did change it to something more permanent by getting citizenship through marriage. I don't think you got automatic citizenship through marriage. >-She became illegal the moment she started working Hot Rod. How do you know that. I know you are a very bright person, but I cannot believe you are an expert on the US Immigration laws of the 1920's. >-Moving to a new state is the measure she took to avoid having to have the visa renewed again. She moved to a new state because that is where Hollywood is. She studied film at the university in Russia. >-The point of her teachings are that immigration laws pestering her are ultimately immoral and make criminals of honest men and women. Immigration laws did not become a major issue in The United States until after her death. >-But she did rush to get married. She did not get married until 1929, three tears after she met O'Conner. She got her citizenship two years later. >-So we can clearly conclude the marriage was one of practicality... Sorry, three years of courting does not support your claim of a rushed marriage for practical reasons. http://www...bout_ayn_rand_aynrand_timeline There is my source, where is/are your source(s) for all the claims you made?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 13:30:30 >-You really should read "La rebelion del atlas" so you understand her teachings better. I have read the English language version about 20 times in the 45 years. It has been awhile since my last reading though. I'll pick up a copy and read it again. Perhaps you should try reading it in English too. CULTR.
Aeros Member	Tue Jan 25 13:32:02 I read it once. It was a riveting tale full of fanciful characters. But that is it.
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 13:34:58 Hot Rod Not automatic. Automatic after being in the US for 5 years. Her Soviet Passport would document her arrival day and she gained citizenship almost to the day 5 years after arrival. Based on marriage. Because a visa did not grant residency. Only immigration did. Working in the US is based on residency in the country. She could not be legally employed as she was a non-resident. Moving to a new state allowed her to bypass visa restrictions. Which it did. As you point out. She started working. HAHAHAHAH@immigration laws not being a major issue. The Government was scared shitless of undesirables arriving and passed draconian restrictions in 1917, 1924, and 1926. The overtly rascist bits were removed after the war and gave a system not unlike that of today. She got married at about the right time to meet citizenship criteria. Would not do marrying the day before applying for citizenship, would it now. But 3 years of late 20s hollywood sex is more consistent with her philosophical outlook that the bliss of matrimony is. The marriage was a very open one as documented. A formality serving a purpose of course - Access to citizenship. Link provided already with bibliography for further reading. Hell of a better source than yours. And even mine is a very simplified readers digest version. I thought you claimed to know of Ayn Rand and her teachings.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 13:48:28 All you are doing is repeating yourself. All you have given me is she renewed her visa in Chicago before going to Hollywood. The major immigration issue I spoke of is the millions of illegals plaguing us now and sapping our assets and jobs. I will see you later.
jergul Member	Tue Jan 25 14:00:28 They are simply practising rational self-interest and some of them no doubt doing so as practitioners of Rand's teachings. Laws make criminals of honest men. Not that anyone should be forced to employ them. But the immigration laws exemplify the laws Government makes to criminalize honest men and women. Immigrants have a moral right to pursue their rational self-interest. Government has no moral right to hinder that. But has an interest in doing so. The teachings of Rand in a nutshell. Take them or leave them.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Jan 25 18:26:15 B U L L S H I T
Aeros Member	Tue Jan 25 21:21:04 ^clearly does not understand Objectivism^
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Jan 25 21:25:03 you disagree that objectivism advocates the pursuit of self-interests, pedo rod?
jergul Member	Wed Jan 26 00:22:49 Hot Rod You see, that is your problem. People try to take you seriously on occasion and that always gets you into trouble. Rand had huge issues securing an exit visa from the USSR, a visitors visa to the US, a renewal of her visitors visa, and in the end had to marry to meet naturalization laws. She certainly broke USSR exit visa conditions, almost certainly broke US visa conditions, and probably was forced to marry to gain citizenship. Yet you think the petty laws she talks about making criminals of honest people have to do with texting on cellphones, not immigration. She was pursuing her rational self-interests in moving to your country. Just as immigrants of today are pursuing theirs. So you side with government and its right to make petty laws for the good of itself and of the collective. Or the anti-thesis of Randian teachings. Why not be consistent and revise your views in immigration instead. The only thing wrong with it are the government measures blocking it.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 01:18:39 You have only proved one of your claims and that is that she renewed her visa in Chicago. You call her a criminal without proof. You claim a hasty marriage to get her citizenship but she did not marry for three years after she met her husband and her citizenship till two years after tha. If you have no documentation I can only assume you are trolling and I have more important things to do than play game. Bring me your documentation or forget it. I have. jergul - Why not be consistent and revise your views in immigration instead. The only thing wrong with it are the government measures blocking it. If you believe that then you truly are a simpleton.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Jan 26 01:33:43 "My position on immigration in today's world is based on Rational Self-Interest for my country. " Wowza. Individualism is out? Thank god Rand is dead, I believe she would have preferred to drown in a shallow pool of Lenin's vomit to reading Rod's love sonnet to big government.
jergul Member	Wed Jan 26 01:33:53 Hot Rod When did she gain quota immigrant status? I find no reference to it anywhere and without evidence that she had it, then we have to assume she stayed in the US on an expired visitors visa. It is quite beyond doubt that she broke her exit visa conditions from the USSR and committed perjury to obtain it (sources say she had no intent on ever coming back and that is breech of the exit visa conditions). I said marriage was inconsistent with her proven inclinations on sexual relations with others. Hollywood sex out of matrimony for 3 years is consistent however. So why marry at all? Well, it gave her citizenship after a decent intermission is beyond doubt. It is pretty well documented that she had immigration trouble stemming from petty laws "making criminals of honest men". Remember if you will that she was facing immigration laws heavily biased in favour of Anglo-Saxons at the expense of Asians, Italians and Eastern Europeans. If she had qualified under the quota regime, then there would be a reference of it (the USSR was not recognized by the US before 1933, so her Soviet education would not be recognized either). As there is no reference and he visa status and citizenship documented, then we will have to conclude she did not in fact have it. At the very least we can say she was an undocumented alien between 1926 and 1931. Until you provide documentation that she had normalized her immigration status. Objectionism may indeed be for simpletons. But I have made the Objectionist case. Immigration laws are among those that make honest men criminals and block the moral right of man to pursue rational self-interest. You need not employ or like new immigrants, but you are not a follower of Rand if you want the Collective and big Government to make criminals of them.
jergul Member	Wed Jan 26 01:51:50 Lets put it another way Rod. Assume I live in the US. Assume then that I found someone willing to pick cabbages for 4 dollars an hour. Assume it is in my rational self-interest to hire him. Assume it is in his rational self-interest to take the job. What moral right does government have to make a criminal of either of us for pursuing our rational self-interests in this dealing between ourselves?
milton bradley Member	Wed Jan 26 01:53:42 Lol, Rand an illegal immigrant...hahaa
milton bradley Member	Wed Jan 26 01:59:02 Hot Rod - Looks like it is well cast. Nimatzo - Ehh? What? Not a single well known actor and the director happens to also play John Galt and his greatest achievement acting wise and directing wise has been... ONE TREE HILL! Game over. Hot Rod - I don't know any of the actors either, but if you match the face to the character they look the part. LMAO
jergul Member	Wed Jan 26 01:59:11 MB Its the great thing about this forum. Occasionally things like that happen. Rand's immigration status "1926-1931" would be a good discussion topic over in some of those Rand forums :).
milton bradley Member	Wed Jan 26 02:04:05 Occasionally? I see it every time I read this board
Nimatzo Member	Wed Jan 26 03:58:03 >>It is said that Microsoft and Apple Computers could not get off the ground today, the way they were developed, because of today's more restrictive laws.<< Every heard of Google, Yahoo, Youtube, Facebook, Ebay and hundred other such companies? You are wrong about pretty much everything.
cock vomit Member	Wed Jan 26 04:00:37 'Its is sad...' Oh spooky! Who said it? '*they* did...'
cock vomit Member	Wed Jan 26 04:01:11 sad=said
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 05:14:30 You guys are no better than the Birthers and about five times as stupid.
so what Member	Wed Jan 26 08:19:21 HR, are you even aware how silly you sound when you say such things to your betters?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 09:05:01 Are you even aware how outrageous you guys sound when you claim Rand has broken the law and all you have for proof is conjecture. Without proof, it is nothing more than a vicious lie and character assassination. Just what you guys have taught me to expect from you liberals.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 09:12:08 I see no difference between the Birthers claiming that Obama was not born in this country and you guys claiming that Rand broke the immigration laws to remain in this country. There is no proof for either claim. That is why I say, *WITH JUSTIFICATION*, that you guys are no better than the Birthers, Your apology is accepted.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Jan 26 09:16:30 I wish Ayn was still alive and read this argument. On one side is me, a fairly successful guy, arguing for the moral right of man to pursue rational self-interest. On the other side is old Rod, who is only able to post here because of various social programs, arguing for the government right to stop individuals from pursuing self-interest. Boom, game over, this is not even close. I bet Ayn would fall in love with me immediately, I would definitely have a shot at her huge vag.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 09:22:01 ^-Pure Silliness.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Jan 26 09:25:06 Whats more weird? An Objectivist who puts government's self interest above individual's self interest or a libertarian who supports every government intrusion into individual's life at the time of war? Actually it doesn't matter, Rod. You are both.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 09:26:18 CR, do you have any concept of the world as it exists today? Thought not.
jergul Member	Wed Jan 26 09:56:34 Hot Rod There is tons of documentation on Obama being born in the US and no documentation that Rand ever gained quota immigration status. We have a record of her getting an extension on her 6 month visa. We have a record of her becoming citizen through marriage. We have a gap between 1926 and 1931. Immigration issues were if anything a much bigger issue during Rand's lifetime. I simply do not believe you ever supported man's moral right to pursue rational self interest ahead of the Collective and Big Government making criminals of honest men through petty laws blocking that right. But your lifespan overlaps with Rand's. When did you decide Big Government should block the pursuit of rational self-interest due to "the world as it exists today"? The late 40s? Early 50s? Somewhere around then?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 10:13:14 jergul - There is tons of documentation on Obama being born in the US... Learn to read. Nothing worse than a Mod that cannot read.
ehcks Member	Wed Jan 26 10:17:25 You're trying to compare people showing you evidence of something to people ignoring evidence of something. Who needs to learn?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 10:20:17 Jesus.
jergul Member	Wed Jan 26 10:26:13 Hot Rod Has anyone anywhere ever claimed that Rand gained quota immigrant status before marrying? To your knowledge? There is a gap in her status from 1926-31. When did you decide big government and petty laws were more important than the teachings of Rand because of "the world as it is today"? Late 40s? Early 50s? You did not answer the concrete question: "Assume I live in the US. Assume then that I found someone willing to pick cabbages for 4 dollars an hour. Assume it is in my rational self-interest to hire him. Assume it is in his rational self-interest to take the job. What moral right does government have to make a criminal of either of us for pursuing our rational self-interests in this dealing between ourselves?"
cock vomit Member	Wed Jan 26 13:51:05 "Nothing worse than a Mod that cannot read." Wow I wish my world was that tiny
Rugian Member	Wed Jan 26 13:52:49 Can we get back to the topic of Rand stepping out?
jergul Member	Wed Jan 26 14:54:14 Too bad you ran off Hot Rod. You might have learned something.
cock vomit Member	Wed Jan 26 15:11:42 as unlikely as my dog learning to cycle to work
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 19:27:55 jergul - There is tons of documentation on Obama being born in the US... HR - I see no difference between the Birthers claiming that Obama was not born in this country and you guys claiming that Rand broke the immigration laws to remain in this country. There is no proof for either claim. I never claimed that Obama was *NOT* born in The United States. I did *NOT* say in the above statement that he was *NOT* born in The United States. Actually, I have always thought he was, indeed, born in Hawaii. You pointing out that there are tons of documentation saying he *WAS* born in The United States is merely proof that you, personally, did *NOT* read my post.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 19:31:52 Or you just didn't understand my post.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jan 26 21:32:35 BTW jergul, a pickpocket is acting on his own self-interest. There is self-interest and there is Rational Self-Interest. Learn the difference sometime.
	show deleted posts