Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/08/2018 in all areas

  1. It appears that the activist leftist press thinks that Barret will be Trump's pick for scotus. They're digging deep and floating scary speculations about groups that she belongs to and relationships that she may or may not have had. They're pretty certain that she hates women so much that she wants to invent laws which make them subservient to men. They're already angry that she wants to violate women's right to force me to pay for their wombs and vaginas whiles screaching at me to stay away from their wombs and vaginas because their lady bits are none of my ficking gad damned business. They're already more afraid of her than they are of radicals from other religions who are throwing gays off of roofs and stoning women to death for having committed the offense of being raped. If she's the pick, it's going to be a lefty hatefest summer. But will they be able to sustain any one of their hate fads? Going after Trump's pick with the standard leftist panic hate smear will take the babies in cages issue off the front burner. They're really starting to spread their hatred too thin.
    1 point
  2. Rand and her heirs were never good at political endorsements and political prognostication. They always misread which of a candidates positions and values were significant, core beliefs, and which were something closer to lip service. They're generally just really bad at making the crossover from theory to practice. j
    1 point
  3. It's been implied several times and sometimes overt. Trump builds honestly/his businesses are honest---so he doesn't sacrifice others. Trump's character is such that he isn't a self-sacrificer. Trump stands for individual rights---so he doesn't want people sacrificing themselves to others.
    1 point
  4. It would depend on Rand's mood at the time. She could go either way. She always sided with the one against the many, whenever she viewed a situation in that light, so, if she focused on the left going apeshit over Trump and their campaigns to destroy him, she'd love to stand up for him, and sort of acknowledge his flaws but place less importance on them. If she were focused on style and technical philosophical differences rather than similarities, she'd label him a rudderless pragmatist who only happened to get it right, so far, about ninety percent of the time according to his inadvertently being in sync with her views, but he would inevitably go off course without the guidance of her philosophy. J
    1 point
  5. Korben, And I say yes. More importantly, though, I think I said it better above: "... I sincerely believe Rand would have gushed over Trump, not as a Randian hero, but as a Mr. Productive version of the President of the United States." I say that knowing how many times Rand thwarted the popularly-accepted predictions of people who claimed to know her thinking. She was really good at pissing people off like that. For instance, it's hard to see it now because it's common knowledge in current-day O-Land, but there was once a time when Rand's admiration for Mickey Spillane had a lot of people bugged and seriously mad at her. They used to think Mike Hammer was nothing but glorified sadism and violence for the sake of violence--entertainment for the lower classes and not the intelligent ones at that. It was considered by them as the worst form of pulp fiction. And the idea of sacrificing others, that didn't even enter the equation with Spillane's stories. Mike Hammer would just as soon shoot somebody in his way or crack his skull as have a drink with his cop friend, Pat. For example, think of the scene in his first Hammer book, I, The Jury, where Mike Hammer is in a bar with Charlotte Manning, who he is in love with. A couple of strangers drinking at the bar make some cheap talk about her. On the way out, Hammer, without them seeing him coming, cracks their heads together like coconuts and leaves feeling satisfied as they fall off their bar stools. Would anybody call that Objectivism? Would anybody call that the world of John Galt and Howard Roark? The tut-tut-tutters thought that kind of thing was a huge disqualifier. Yet Rand not only gushed over Spillane, she used his work for examples of romantic art and how to write well. Michael
    1 point