• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RTB

  1. NH: GOP recount triggers concern over uncast ballots

    My 2nd report from scene of New Hampshire primary recount. Ron Paul supporters express a new concern: The lack of ability to account for uncast ballots. State officials respond to the concern. Note that citizens are able to open carry firearms in the state building where the recount is underway, with no grief from authorities.

    I'm most concerned about the armed pistol carrying midgets in my closet........ :-P

  2. Yes, I'm covering the fraud concerns and here is my report from yesterday at the scene of the NH recount:

    NH: Paul supporters out in force for primary recount (ridleo)

    Note that whatever tricks may have been played on us, Ron Paul got more percentage points here than in any other primary...and that was with over 20 people on the ballot and 9 major republicans still in the race at the time.

    After the elections are over I intend on keeping Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul in my closet next to my snow shoes. They're so entertaining. I've got a midget in there too but please don't tell anyone. The 'Little People' lobby is getting pretty powerful nowadays and I don't need the extra heat.

  3. if we are going to prescribe a doctrine of appropriate human behaviour then we should be looking at scientific behaviour as a model as well, not simply commerce, trading, production, etc.

    Believe it or not, women know things. They are especially familiar with the idea that things live and die, which men don’t immediately grasp as a first principle. We’re the guys who intervene to preserve life, build suspension bridges, drill oil wells in the North Sea and whatnot to keep everybody alive. We’re so good at it, that more people are alive today than all the people who previously lived on earth. It is a special form of boy-child denial, to believe that one’s chance in life is a foregone conclusion. You could be hit by a bus (or an unplanned romance) tomorrow. In view of this fact, it is unhelpful to assume that you know precisely who or what you are. Your sexuality and spirit are evolving potentialities that unfold over the course of time. This is called growth. It is denied to anyone who believes that his character is static, like an immortal god or a rock.

    What kind of post modernist irrationalistic crap is this ?

    "believe it or not women know things"

    "evolving sexual potentialities......"

    " it is unhelpful to assume that you (I would presume that means all of us reading this?) KNOW precisely who or what you are."

    "Your sexuality and spirit are evolving potentialities that 'unfold' over the course of time.....this is called growth"

    Growth toward what?

  4. Btw, Laure, in regard to her understanding of her own husband, however, I think that she did not understand him well. I think she thought of him more in a fictionalized way, as if he were one of her characters.

    Just an example reported by a lot of people I knew who were close friends of Frank's and Ayn's (also reported by John Hospers in his memoir): I wonder what you make of her saying that Frank loved New York and hated California when others who knew him said he never quite got over having to leave California?

    Despite the freedom she expected in her relationship, it looks to me like she saw Frank almost the way many men see their wives, as property, or as extensions of themselves. She assumed that he felt that way because she felt that way. It would be preposterous for the furniture to disagree. :)


    I think you have a very narrow and non objective view on what most men view their women as. Most men do not view their women as property. Do you seriously think this? I wouldn't even think that most men in America viewed their wives as property in the year 1700. We are not living in Saudi Arabia. Your prejudice just oozes.

    Besides, if you actually believe that this were to be the case and practicing infedility will somehow "liberate" you from this type of "ownership" I contend you're mistaken. You're just allowing society or your partner's relationship with you to dictate your behavior which is the exact same form of perceived control.

    If you wish to have an open marriage or creep around on your spouse I doubt anyone here would ever advocate that anyone stop you. However most will probably find it morally faulted.

  5. But I'd be more interested, from a moral point of view, understanding why any male would ever consent to what he did.

    Why not? Haven't you ever heard of "open marriage"? After the first heat of passion wears off of a relationship, one no longer goes crazy at the thought of one's partner being with someone else. I've always been surprised that people found Frank's complicity so surprising -- it seems perfectly normal to me after so many years of marriage.


    What is the point of holding someone to be your "highest value", and publicly proclaiming it even after decades of marriage, if one is going to engage, with other people, in the most intimate and value-expressive activities that mutual "highest values" engage in?

    For that matter, how honest are such proclamations, in the light of outside affairs? And how do they fit into "Open Marriage"?

    I'm just curious. I'm not interested in bashing AR or NB for the unwisdom of what they did with one another, let alone how they handled the aftermath of it.

    My focus is this: I've never understood how Objectivism and Open Marriage were compatible, unless you deliberately enter into a marriage with someone who is not your "highest value." (And why would you do that?)

    Hmmm, perhaps Dagny went back to occasional "dates" with Rearden and Francisco, after "the first heat of passion" wore off of her relationship with Galt. Or maybe it never did -- maybe they're still, exclusively with each other, screwing like love-starved minks, even to this very day! :)


    I agree with Mr. Bissel. Why any man (or woman---although this is debatable and a topic I won't open) would ever consent to "giving his woman away" is beyond me.

    I can't think of anything more horrible or psychologically damaging to a man's self esteem than to submit to such an affront. I think most men would rather their own home be literally burned to the ground than suffer that.

    I believe there's bioevolutionary reasons for why this is so distressing to the male mind.

    As for so called 'open marriage'. No thanks. I'd not ever consent to such a thing.

  6. The last I heard the movie is coming out at the end of this year. Unless you have an unusually short life expectancy you might be able to see it.

    What movie ???

    Atlas Shrugged. Angelina Jolie is playing Dagny Taggart. There's a thread in here somewhere about it.

  7. RTB,

    Just a little history. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was very much interested in Frank's drinking problems beyond Rand's immediate circle. Barbara mentioned it as part of her biography of Rand based on people she interviewed, just like one would mention the issues of family members in any biography. It was a VERY minor point.

    Then the orthodoxy latched hold of this as one more "proof" of the evilness of the Brandens, yada yada yada. It got to the point where they alleged that Frank used empty booze bottles to paint with and other such matters. It grew and grew and grew.

    It would be silly and forgettable if they had left it there. But they periodically insist on this nonsense and keep at it in the most vicious terms possible. It gets really nasty when they get on a roll.

    So, rather than letting the issue die, which it would have years ago if not for the nonsense, people keep discussing Frank's drinking.



    Yes, I'm aware. I've read all of the back and forth.

  8. btw - I'm sure nobody here really thinks you are a cultist.

    Ignoring reality in order to convince others to do the same is cultish behavior. This is precisely what Jim and Laure proposed.

    I'm not going to call someone a cultist, I'll just say that if the shoe fits they can wear it.


    I'd like to announce the founding of The Brant Gaede Cult. The object is to send me all your money and valuable worldly goods. It's okay to sell the later and just send me money, but I would like a Bentley and a fishing rod. Oh, yes, a throne as befits my new status.


    Oooooo! I want to be the first member! Pick me! Pick me!

  9. Essentially, you're asking about honesty and the necessity of being rude, mean, impolite, etc. It's an important question. I do not think that being honest requires me to be rude. In my experience, there is always a gentle way to tell the truth.

    If a friend suggests you get together a particular evening, and you're simply not in the mood to see him -- do you tell him so?

    Yes, I do. I say it in a way that I know they will understand and not be hurt by.

    If an acquaintance suggests it, and you don't particularly like him or find him interesting and therefore you don't care to spend an evening with him -- do you tell him so?

    No, I don't tell them that I don't like them. I tell them that I can't make the date they propose and hope they get the message. If they persist, however, I will have to find a way to tell them that I'm not interested.

    If a date says, "This has been a wonderful evening. Did you enjoy it, too?" -- and in fact you were bored stiff, do you say so?

    Here I would find a gentle way of saying that I didn't enjoy myself. After all, if the point of the date is a potential romantic partner, honesty is paramount from the beginning.

    Jordan, I'm not suggesting that one should be rude or mean or cruel. Anything but. I'm suggesting that when one frames one's responses to these questions in a kinder way than one thinks them, one is surely at least skirting the truth. For instance, when you say "I can't make the date you propose" to a man you don't care to see, now or ever, you are suggesting something that is not true -- that is, that if you could make the date, you would. And to the boring date who asks, "Did you enjoy the evening" -- a "gentle way" of saying you didn't enjoy it sounds to me like an impossibility. My point is that it often would be cruel to say what one thinks, and that when we shade our actual reasons, when do not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in these sorts of instances, we are being quite properly kind.


    Let's please keep in mind that noone has the right to the contents of our minds. I'm not under oath every time I encounter someone on the street or wherever. That sort of ideal shouldn't be presumed when we engage others. This is human custom. However, this doesn't allow us to be flippant with the truth or abuse people. To respond to your hypothetical example in regard to a date one doesn't find interesting when she says "I had a lovely evening, didn't you?" It is sufficient to say "It was ok."

    Or when a woman dresses in front of you and asks, "does this dress make me look fat?" A skilled honest man will simply say, "I think the red dress makes you look thinner" or some such. This social skill is not difficult and is easy to practice. It is congruentt with truthfulness yet polite.

    This isn't a lie and it's not cruel. Presumably if the man was such a directly sincere or honest person and the date was TRULY horrible (for objective reasons such as her spending the evening berating him or men in general out of some crazed misanthropic state) (Thankfully, I've never been on a date like this but bear with me in the thought experiment) He would have excused himself well prior to the "I had a lovely evening" comment.

    Lying is the communication to others with the intent to deceive. This assumes that what you are communicating is something that you believe to be false at the time you make the statement or communication.

    I've never encountered an example of 'lying' that does not fit into that definition.

  10. RTB,

    You call that a contribution to a discussion?


    Get over it yourself. These things are what people do. Don't read it if you don't want to.


    Yes, MSK. Sometimes harsh words can be a contribution. Feel the love! :-P

  11. As far as an alcoholic being no match for Ayn, that is beside the point. Whoever says that doesn't understand much about the spousal dynamics involved where one of them is an alcoholic.

    I guess it depends whether you go with the disease model or the choice model, as to how shrill you will be when trying to pointlessly protect someone's good name. I totally don't get that. If Frank was a heavy, quiet drinker (which I could totally see- shit, AR was running a sanctioned affair and he was complying!- hell, that alone would make me think about just hiding in my studio, and doing art and swilling. Totally demoralizing!).

    Agreed. And this stuff is all worthless gossip anyway. What does it matter? Have you folks even thought about that? This ancient topic just serves as terrain for people to argue with one another over something that ultimately is inconsequential and also irrelevent to the realm of ideas. I'm guessing that the median age on this site is 35 or 40? Regardless, it's old enough for us to know better.

    I don't care how much Frank drank. But I'd be more interested, from a moral point of view, understanding why any male would ever consent to what he did. But even that is mere gossip and worthless.

  12. No comment. A gentlemen never tells.

    I will say there's a certain amount to be said for having the proper equipment when you're out to do a job.


    That's right, you heard me.

    Oh, come on, Rich, you gotta tell a story !!! Your stories for the most part crack me up. We've shared quite a few stories and you gotta cough some up and quick !!! Rob is needing some entertainment.

    True.....but 'robbie boy' isn't very amusing. I'm shattered! :-P

  13. angelina-jolie.jpg

    Angelina Jolie

    (I see that this is an old thread, but want to reply to it anyway)

    Kat - I have no qualms with Angelina Jolie's ability to play Dagny. What I am a bit uncomfortable with though, is the segment of movie-goers who will come to watch this movie not because of Atlas Shrugged, but because of their lingering identification with Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider/Mr. Mrs Smith, etc. I feel almost protective of the story from those who may have never even heard of the book and won't be able to grasp its depth.

    I've never before cared this much for the release of a movie!

    Would you rather them not appear in the audience at all?

  14. CNA, despite all that's occurred, you might want to watch out for those

    Little Arrows

    "Here they come, pouring out of the blue ..."

    LOL, obviously and quite a few are flyin' at me. oh, man. Amazing. Oy, what to do and how to dodge them perhaps?!?! LOL This reminds me of a wedding I had once gone to when the bride's bouquet was thrown. You know the typical girl thing is that most of the girls go clamoring for it, sometime fights break out because they want to be the next one to be married or whatever it is. I even have a picture of this and should post it if I can find it because it's quite funny. I didn't want to be in the little group of women waiting to catch it. BUT since it was a very dear cousin of mine whom I was very close, I didn't want to offend or disappoint her, especially on her wedding day. So I stood there but on the outskirts of the group waiting reluctantly for the flowers to be thrown. Well, it went up in the air and towards me. OY, of all people it had to be coming right at me. LOL Well, of course all the women go clamoring for it and I take off running in the opposite direction. Hell no, I didn't want to catch it. I was still pretty young. But they actually got a picture of it, flowers mid air, women all around with hands raised up in the air and me running in the opposite direction with a look on my face of, I'm outta here. LOL But the next wedding I went to, again came in my direction and this time caught it and sure as sh*t was married within a year. hehehehe Nah, no luck or fate, wanted to get married of course. But you are most correct that they are flyin'

    Some women are harder to catch than the flowers..........and smell even lovlier.

  15. For all you know, maybe they have written some sort of statement but don't want it released while they're still among the living. (I don't know if they have done that.) Their life now, from what I've heard, is thoroughly separate from the O'ist world, and they might want it to stay that way for what they have left.



    Sad. Are we that tough to get along with? Probably so.


    I don't want to weigh in on these stupid squabbles between Objectivist groups. I made a rant in another thread about it. I haven't talked to any well known Objectivist in years. I can and will say that I have known Perigo years ago and hold him to be in high esteem. I don't know what's gone on in the past 8 years or so but I have nothing bad at all to say about that man. And in most circles my opinion and judge of character counts for alot.

    I get the impression that most of all the argumentative parties don't even recall what it is they're arguing over any more. I've heard this and that and whatever else.

    Fathom this fantasy thought experiment as philosophically minded individuals:

    Would all of you people be able to 'get along' if we were all dumbfoundedly stranded on a deserted island somewhere?

    Jerks. All of you....jerks.

  16. A worthwhile exchange, even though it had me ending up on a tangent; in this case realizing I had a can of glow in the dark paint sitting around unused. I'm downloading stencil patterns and getting to work on the walls...


    Mission Creep: sometimes it can be your little friend.

    Glow paint? I concede defeat.

  17. Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

    The people who work in the bars should have a right to a smoke-free workplace. People's health should not suffer because of conditions where they earn a living. If you tried to make someone do something dangerous to their health in an industrial setting the safety officers could shut the jobsite down. People who work in bars don't have the same clout as tradespeople.

    WHY WHY WHY ? Why should they have a right to this or that.....explain it

    You can't simultaneaously have a right to a job and this sort of nonsense

  18. Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

    The owner does.


    Yes, which is exactly the point I just made.....

    I'm not sure where I said: pub/restaurant owners should be forced to have smoke-free premises (all I said was that I love being able to go places without being subjected to other people's killer habit), but I guess my not clearly expressing this implied it. My main point was that if, revenue is up for restaurant/pub owners since the ban, why didn't they make this realization themselves and make their premises smoke-free long ago? I think non-smokers in the UK don't kick up a big enough stink about refusing to be in smoky places. Smoke-free zones are waste of time - the smoke just drifts over.

    You'll notice that that is what I'm not stating.

  19. Victor -- you're THAT pressed for time, man, you got weird priorities.

    Angie -- Darden's books generally carry diet info as well as exercise.

    LOL.... Out of boredom I had this window open and was scanning through threads.

    All I can say is......ha. lol "wait a minute...there's a little bit of drool....let me get napkin"