The Time is NOW to Help the Movie Suceed

[jriggenbach]

The horror, the horror . . .

Thanks, Ted.

But you are the only poster I have ever seen on Objectivist Living who, when confronted with the reality of the destruction of a country and the mass murder of its citizens, responds by telling cheap jokes, as though this were somehow something to laugh about. You are one sick, twisted sub-species of humanity.

Martin

More "sick, twisted sub-species" on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_9ECWIaIoY&feature=related

It just doesn't get any lower or more despicable than this. Thanks so much for helping us innocent souls to see the depravity and evil that lurks all around us.

It's like running smack into a wall, isn't it Martin? A wall of implacable, invincible stupidity.

JR

[kiaer.ts]

The horror, the horror . . .

Thanks, Ted.

But you are the only poster I have ever seen on Objectivist Living who, when confronted with the reality of the destruction of a country and the mass murder of its citizens, responds by telling cheap jokes, as though this were somehow something to laugh about. You are one sick, twisted sub-species of humanity.

Martin

It's like running smack into a wall, isn't it Martin? A wall of implacable, invincible stupidity.

The only joke here is you two and your baseless accusations and hysterical (i.e., insane, womanly) name calling and armchair zealotry.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Ted Keer

[Philip Coates]

Very good news:

I just found out that Freedomworks, the influential organization behind the tea parties, has a significant campaign underway to try to get the movie in as many theaters as possible in the first release.

(These are people who know what they are doing.)

The number of theaters has already doubled from what it was several weeks ago.

[Selene]

Very good news:

I just found out that Freedomworks, the influential organization behind the tea parties, has a significant campaign underway to try to get the movie in as many theaters as possible in the first release.

(These are people who know what they are doing.)

The number of theaters has already doubled from what it was several weeks ago.

Totally agree with you Phil.

Funny how the political people who have been in the trenches know how to move a movement forward.

[BaalChatzaf]

Totally agree with you Phil.

Funny how the political people who have been in the trenches know how to move a movement forward.

Isn't that what politically motivated and politically oriented people do? Promote agendas.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Totally agree with you Phil.

Funny how the political people who have been in the trenches know how to move a movement forward.

Isn't that what politically motivated and politically oriented people do? Promote agendas.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Not sure I agree with the unmodified "agenda" depiction, but those folks work within the polity to advance the change that they feel is in their best interests.

An agenda as defined below works for me:

"A political agenda is a set of issues and policies laid out by an executive or cabinet in government that tries to influence current and near-future political news and debate.

The political agenda while shaped by government can be influenced by grass-roots support from party activists at events such as a party conference and can even be shaped by non governmental activist groups which have a political aim.

Governmental organizations such as Make Poverty History and environmental groups such as Greenpeace have been able to shape the political agenda at international conferences.^[1]

Increasingly the mass media can have an effect in shaping the political agenda through its news coverage of news stories. Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver was able to shape the political agenda by running a series of programs which criticized the quality of school dinners in the United Kingdom. This led to government action by education secretary Ruth Kelly to improve the quality of meals which would not have occurred if not for such prominent and vocal criticism.^{[2] "}

A political party can be described as "shaping the political agenda" or "setting the political agenda" if its promotion of certain issues gains prominent news coverage, for example at election time a political party wants to promote its polices and gain prominent news coverage in order to increase its support."

[jriggenbach]

These are people who know what they are doing.

I'm sure.

JR

[Martin Radwin]

The horror, the horror . . .

Thanks, Ted.

But you are the only poster I have ever seen on Objectivist Living who, when confronted with the reality of the destruction of a country and the mass murder of its citizens, responds by telling cheap jokes, as though this were somehow something to laugh about. You are one sick, twisted sub-species of humanity.

Martin

More "sick, twisted sub-species" on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_9ECWIaIoY&feature=related

It just doesn't get any lower or more despicable than this. Thanks so much for helping us innocent souls to see the depravity and evil that lurks all around us.

Obama's joke was indeed despicable, but what made it despicable was the fact that Obama is actually ordering drones to launch missiles at innocent people in Pakistan. Obama has already demonstrated that he is a war criminal and a mass murderer. The strong implication from his quip is that he is actually not joking at all, that he really might comtemplate murdering anyone who dares to approach his daughters in a manner which he disapproves. Obama has already taken the position that he has the right to murder any person anywhere in the world, including American citizens, should he deem them to be a terrorist threat to the security of the U.S., the extent of the threat to be determined by none other than the president himself, without any evidence, charges, or trial for the target to be murdered.

What exactly is your point? That the obvious fact that some people tell tacky or even despicable jokes somehow justifies Ted's joke about what has been a murderous war crime by the U.S. government and a human tragedy for the Iraqi people?

Suppose that someone here on Objectivist Living posted about the tragedy of 9/11, about the people crushed or burned to death or suffocated, about the people jumping out of windows to their death to escape the inferno. Suppose that, in response to this post, I posted a joke about the whole tragedy, as though it were the funniest thing in the world. I suspect that my joke would be followed by a rather justifiable barrage of moral outrage by many posters, who would label me as a sick, twisted, loathsome bastard for making a joke over such a horrible tragedy as the 9/11 attack. If I were then to respond to this barrage of condemnation by posting a bunch of nasty jokes told by various politicians and celebrities, would this somehow justify my behavior? Would it make my joke any less despicable that other people had told similarly despicable jokes?

The reason that I would get pounced on for joking about 9/11, while Ted can tell a joke about the Iraq War and get no reaction from anyone here (other than me), is that most people, including most of the posters here on OL, don't consider the Iraq War to be any kind of a major tragedy, despite the fact that a hundred times as many people have died in the Iraq War as in the 9/11 attack. The Iraqis either deserved what they got, they're nothing but a bunch of savages anyway, the U.S. government was somehow justified in starting a war that resulted in all of these deaths, or it was all Saddam Hussein's fault, thereby absoving the U.S. government of any blame for the tragedy that ensued. And so the slaughter continues, as Americans continue to deny any culpability of their government for its crimes against humanity, or as they continue to deny the humanity of the victims. And people like Ted feel free to tell jokes about it all as the human carnage proceeds.

Martin

[Greybird]

[...] The reason that I would get pounced on for joking about 9/11, while Ted can tell a joke about the Iraq War and get no reaction from anyone here (other than me), is that most people, including most of the posters here on OL, don't consider the Iraq War to be any kind of a major tragedy, despite the fact that a hundred times as many people have died in the Iraq War as in the 9/11 attack.

Martin, although I entirely agree with your appraisals of political leaders and their culpability for war crimes and murderous atrocities, I have to note that you are making an unwarranted generalization here.

Many more than you see posting actively are not part of the neocon/neolib consensus for war and Empire that dominates what many post about. They just don't talk about their opposition. Much of it comes from a practical truce, in effect, to allow bringing up other topics with those same people. It's compartmentalizing of thought, true enough. Yet if that weren't done, no substantive discussion would get accomplished.

I know that I rarely bring up matters of war and the culpability for it, because I'm tired of derision, context-dropping, and State-worship being proffered in lieu of argument. That happens in all discussion venues, though at Objectiv-ish ones, those anti-discussion traits are often put across with a distinct air of asserted moral superiority.

It's as if the concrete evidence of abuse of individual rights and reasoned discourse is irrelevant, if the moral virtue of institutions one likes or endorses is asserted.

You're expecting a questioning of the motives and practice of a sprawling statist institution that, in terms of following Rand's exaggerated worship, is excused from any serious moral blame due to what it supposedly was founded upon. Well, that skepticism isn't going to be expressed very often, not here, anyway. It creates more battles against irrationality than many of us have the stamina to fight in a single day, or a week, or a month.

I never thought that the travails of Sisyphus, rolling that rock up only to be dashed down again for the gods' amusement, were worth emulating on a discussion board or list. For "gods," read: privileged discussion parties. This venue has them, both formally and informally. So does every other.

Observing those facts and — generally — avoiding collisions accordingly doesn't make for fear-ridden discussants. No more so than admitting to and dealing with the greater (literal) firepower of the IRS makes one a moral coward.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Greybird

[Greybird]

Two forlorn observations as to how discussions are formed:

One element (which I've often abetted, to my regret) is that Objectiv-ish venues seem to keep setting record velocities for thread drift.

The other (which I've never been a part of) is that, if a picture does not create a genuine substitute for argument, then an embedding of a YouTube video is far less valid as such a substitute.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

I'm glad you mentioned the over-generalization to Martin.

I want to make an observation, though. I know some of the posters lean in a neocon direction, but I believe the following position is more correct for many readers (I'm presuming, but I think it's good presuming). I know it applies to me.

I don't like any dictators. Not foreign ones. Not American wannabes. And I loathe war.

I am not adverse to analyzing--in practical terms--the wars being waged to see if there are ways to stop them with as little danger as possible or avoid making disastrous choices that will make them worse--or even to keep up with what is going on. This does not mean I sanction them on a fundamental level. I want them to stop.

I am also immune to the "if you are not against XXX than you are for XXX" kind of argument. If I bash a foreign dictator, that does not mean I support the USA government's monkey-shines. And if I bash a foreign policy of the USA government, that does not mean I support a foreign dictator.

It's hard to keep to this view when people constantly accuse you of one thing or the other. But I don't budge. I'm hopeful that this attitude will become more accepted over time by the vocal posters who don't think this way (both sides) by sheer wearing them down.

This way of thinking exists.

It will not go away because of yelling and accusing and mocking.

And if it does not become more accepted, I still won't budge. I believe many who do not post often are like me in this respect.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Thanks, Ted.

But you are the only poster I have ever seen on Objectivist Living who, when confronted with the reality of the destruction of a country and the mass murder of its citizens, responds by telling cheap jokes, as though this were somehow something to laugh about. You are one sick, twisted sub-species of humanity.

Martin

More "sick, twisted sub-species" on video:

video links deleted

It just doesn't get any lower or more despicable than this. Thanks so much for helping us innocent souls to see the depravity and evil that lurks all around us.

What exactly is your point? That the obvious fact that some people tell tacky or even despicable jokes somehow justifies Ted's joke about what has been a murderous war crime by the U.S. government and a human tragedy for the Iraqi people?

Martin

Your pacifist viewpoint in opposition to present United States foreign policy is the sort of bizarre, dopey moral crusade one might expect to encounter on the Huffington Post or Code Pink or some other left-wing touchy-feely webforum. You are obviously free to advocate loving those who want to kill us or whatever foolishness strikes your fancy, but to post your hopelessly misguided views here and then proceed to mount a vicious personal attack on Ted was totally absurd. The fact that you (and that pompous libertarian "scholar" you admire so much) substitute stale, rude, overwrought invective for arguments just underscores the fact that you cannot logically defend this happy pacifist horsecrap.

Moreover, having a sense of humor is more important than ever during wartime. It is a way for people to maintain their perspective and their sanity. Attacking someone for that is just pure pompous bullshit. Give me a freakin' break.

My point was to show that your attack on Ted was baseless, silly and nonsensical. Which it obviously was.

[jriggenbach]

You are obviously free to advocate loving those who want to kill us or whatever foolishness strikes your fancy . . . .

Yes, indeed, millions of civilians in the Mideast "want to kill us," and anyone who refuses to accept this asinine statement with a straight face is a "pacifist" guilty of "foolishness." Yes, indeed.

JR

[Philip Coates]

> I know that I rarely bring up matters of war and the culpability for it, because I'm tired of derision, context-dropping, and State-worship being proffered in lieu of argument. That happens in all discussion venues, though at Objectiv-ish ones, those anti-discussion traits are often put across with a distinct air of asserted moral superiority. [GB, post 59]

Greybird, although I would very much disagree with a number of the views of yourself, Martin, and Jeff on these issues (finding them to drop context and the distinction between offense, defense, protection, and the hostage principle), I think you should go ahead and express them** in a logical, non-accusatory, non-personal way***. (( Martin's attack on Ted for making a joke doesn't help in this regard and neither does a post like this later on by Dennis doing exactly the same sort of personal contemptuous attack kind of thing: " Your pacifist viewpoint in opposition to present United States foreign policy is the sort of bizarre, dopey moral crusade one might expect to encounter on the Huffington Post or Code Pink... " [Dennis, post 62]. ))

If your posts or those of Dennis or Ted or Martin or Jeff are personal attacks or expressions of hostility or contempt, I probably will stop reading such a post. If they are careful, logical, evidence-based -- not always the case on this list, to say the least...on either side -- I would treat them thoughtfully and then try to rebut them logically.

My approach: I don't respond to those who characteristically offer thoughtful arguments with derision, personal attacks, or personal ridicule. When I -do- respond that way (call someone an "asshole" or the equivalent) it's usually in response to an attack on me or to someone who has done nothing but treat me that way. In that case, it can be appropriate.

(BTW, an air of 'moral superiority' or your perception of arrogance or condescension isn't the issue to take offense at, as long as there isn't specific personal attack or otherwise making personalities the issue, rather than the issue at hand.)

> One element (which I've often abetted, to my regret) is that Objectiv-ish venues seem to keep setting record velocities for thread drift. [GB]

Yes. I started this thread about promoting the Atlas movie.... hmmm?

> The other (which I've never been a part of) is that, if a picture does not create a genuine substitute for argument, then an embedding of a YouTube video is far less valid as such a substitute. [GB]

I personally don't mind it if it's funny or clever, but some people seem to do it constantly as a substitute for argument (or just another form of ridicule). And that gets old pretty fast. Sort of like high school bullies, only in a more "intellectual" form.

** I'm in a distinct minority on a number or issues here(and am often in fact actively ridiculed by a persistent handful for my views), but I never let that stop me from presenting my case for them. The ridicule people are dead weight.

*** the more emotional the issue, the more likely someone is to fire off a post doing this.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Martin Radwin]

[...] The reason that I would get pounced on for joking about 9/11, while Ted can tell a joke about the Iraq War and get no reaction from anyone here (other than me), is that most people, including most of the posters here on OL, don't consider the Iraq War to be any kind of a major tragedy, despite the fact that a hundred times as many people have died in the Iraq War as in the 9/11 attack.

Martin, although I entirely agree with your appraisals of political leaders and their culpability for war crimes and murderous atrocities, I have to note that you are making an unwarranted generalization here.

Many more than you see posting actively are not part of the neocon/neolib consensus for war and Empire that dominates what many post about. They just don't talk about their opposition. Much of it comes from a practical truce, in effect, to allow bringing up other topics with those same people. It's compartmentalizing of thought, true enough. Yet if that weren't done, no substantive discussion would get accomplished.

I know that I rarely bring up matters of war and the culpability for it, because I'm tired of derision, context-dropping, and State-worship being proffered in lieu of argument. That happens in all discussion venues, though at Objectiv-ish ones, those anti-discussion traits are often put across with a distinct air of asserted moral superiority.

It's as if the concrete evidence of abuse of individual rights and reasoned discourse is irrelevant, if the moral virtue of institutions one likes or endorses is asserted.

You're expecting a questioning of the motives and practice of a sprawling statist institution that, in terms of following Rand's exaggerated worship, is excused from any serious moral blame due to what it supposedly was founded upon. Well, that skepticism isn't going to be expressed very often, not here, anyway. It creates more battles against irrationality than many of us have the stamina to fight in a single day, or a week, or a month.

I never thought that the travails of Sisyphus, rolling that rock up only to be dashed down again for the gods' amusement, were worth emulating on a discussion board or list. For "gods," read: privileged discussion parties. This venue has them, both formally and informally. So does every other.

Observing those facts and — generally — avoiding collisions accordingly doesn't make for fear-ridden discussants. No more so than admitting to and dealing with the greater (literal) firepower of the IRS makes one a moral coward.

Steve,

Thanks for pointing out the problem in the way I worded my post. I have no way of knowing how any any particular poster feels about this issue, unless they explicitly state their views about it. Noone is obligated to post on any particular subject, and the fact that they don't post on a particular subject cannot be used as a basis for extrapolating their position on that subject. Since most posters here on OL have not explicitly posted on this subject, I have no basis for drawing such generalizations.

However, going back to the example I gave in my previous post, if I told a joke about the people burning to death or jumping out of windows after the 9/11 attack, what do you suppose the reaction here on OL would be? I'd imagine that any number of posters here would be screaming at me at the top of their lungs and calling me every obscene name they could think of. The fact that I can make a post about the tragedy of the Iraq War, Ted responds with an inane joke about it, and noone here at OL responds to his joke, doesn't this tell you something about the relative attitude that posters here have about 9/11 versus the Iraq War? Isn't the implication that, at least for those many posters who would savagely attack me for my joke and yet remain silent about Ted's joke, their attitude is that 9/11 is a far greater crime against humanity that the Iraq War, so that it's obscene to joke about the former but okay to joke about the latter?

Martin

[9thdoctor]

The fact that I can make a post about the tragedy of the Iraq War, Ted responds with an inane joke about it, and noone here at OL responds to his joke, doesn't this tell you something about the relative attitude that posters here have about 9/11 versus the Iraq War?

You keep mentioning this bad joke of Ted’s, how about a link? I don’t know what you’re talking about. Was it on this thread?

[kiaer.ts]

The fact that I can make a post about the tragedy of the Iraq War, Ted responds with an inane joke about it, and noone here at OL responds to his joke, doesn't this tell you something about the relative attitude that posters here have about 9/11 versus the Iraq War?

You keep mentioning this bad joke of Ted's, how about a link? I don't know what you're talking about. Was it on this thread?

Martin, to take you seriously for a moment, your responses on this thread have been utterly hysterical. Nowhere have I expressed any delight in the murder of innocents, any hatred for foreigners, or any ignorance of the horror of war. You, who do not know and have not ever met me, have simply attributed these attitudes to me. You apparently don't know that I am a multilingual xenophile, that I lived and worked with Mexican illegal aliens long enough to become fully fluent in Spanish, that I purposefully chose to live in various hispanic neighborhoods in NYC, that I have experienced murder first hand, including that of both a loved one, and of a next door neighbor, that I have had to defend myself barefisted and with weapons on many occasions, that I have also experienced war first hand, with this building, 140 West Street in Lower Manhattan

being my place of employment, pierced by the falling antennae of the World Trade Center, that my father actually worked in an office an a floor of the South Tower which was hit by the plane on 9/11, and that a next door neighbor of my childhood died at Window on the World, although I have not asked his survivors whether he was one who leapt

or burned to death.

No, you know none of this, but you feel entitled to assume that because I have expressed the opinion that there is no problem with using force to interrogate unlawful enemy combatants, that I must enjoy making jokes about violence and the slaughter of innocents. But you have made a mistake. The subject of my jokes above has not been the supposed innocent victims of the violence of war. The subject of my jokes has been you and your ignorant hysterical reaction.

The horror. The horror.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Ted Keer

[Martin Radwin]

Thanks, Ted.

But you are the only poster I have ever seen on Objectivist Living who, when confronted with the reality of the destruction of a country and the mass murder of its citizens, responds by telling cheap jokes, as though this were somehow something to laugh about. You are one sick, twisted sub-species of humanity.

Martin

More "sick, twisted sub-species" on video:

video links deleted

It just doesn't get any lower or more despicable than this. Thanks so much for helping us innocent souls to see the depravity and evil that lurks all around us.

What exactly is your point? That the obvious fact that some people tell tacky or even despicable jokes somehow justifies Ted's joke about what has been a murderous war crime by the U.S. government and a human tragedy for the Iraqi people?

Martin

Your pacifist viewpoint in opposition to present United States foreign policy is the sort of bizarre, dopey moral crusade one might expect to encounter on the Huffington Post or Code Pink or some other left-wing touchy-feely webforum. You are obviously free to advocate loving those who want to kill us or whatever foolishness strikes your fancy, but to post your hopelessly misguided views here and then proceed to mount a vicious personal attack on Ted was totally absurd. The fact that you (and that pompous libertarian "scholar" you admire so much) substitute stale, rude, overwrought invective for arguments just underscores the fact that you cannot logically defend this happy pacifist horsecrap.

You really ought to look up the word "pacifist" in the dictionary. I am not and never have been a pacifist. The fact that you think that opposing and morally condemning a murderous, non-defensive war launched by the U.S. government that has brought about the death of hundreds of thousands of people and that has turned 10% of the entire population into refugees, constitutes pacifism, shows how utterly distorted your view of pacifism is. This may come as a revelation to you, but the majority of countries in the world today manage to provide for their own defense just fine without launching murderous wars of aggression against other countries. It has been a rather long time since Switzerland last fought in a war. If you think that the Swiss are pacifists, I suggest you gather together an army and try launching an invasion of Switzerland. You'll see first hand just how pacifistic the Swiss are.

As to your view that they want to kill us, why don't you try doing some basic arithmetic. Add up the total number of Americans killed by Muslims. Then add up the total number of Muslims killed by Americans. See which of the two is greater. When you're done with this exercise, add up the total amount of American territory occupied by Muslims. Then add up the total amount of Muslim territory occupied by Americans. See which of the two is greater. Perhaps, after you have gone through this exercise, you will come to realize that a more logical conclusion would be for them to believe that "we" want to kill them, rather than for us to believe that "they" want to kill us.

Furthermore, I have never advocated that we "love" the Iraqis. This is a false dichotomy, that we must either love them or murder them and occupy their country. How about we leave them the hell alone, stop killing them, stop occupying their land, and get the hell out of their country?

Moreover, having a sense of humor is more important than ever during wartime. It is a way for people to maintain their perspective and their sanity. Attacking someone for that is just pure pompous bullshit. Give me a freakin' break.

My point was to show that your attack on Ted was baseless, silly and nonsensical. Which it obviously was.

I'm glad you can have a sense of humor about all of those dead, wounded, and homeless Iraqis. Yeah, that's really funny. Of course, it's easy for you to laugh about it. You can sit here safe in your cocoon, watching the devastation your government has inflicted on a people who live far, far away. And in your spare time, you can write moral justifications for this carnage. And you can pretend to be a highly moral person, an exemplar of the highest principles of objectivist morality, a believer in freedom, liberty, and individual rights. Except for those other nonpersons, that is.

Martin

[kiaer.ts]

Thanks, Ted.

But you are the only poster I have ever seen on Objectivist Living who, when confronted with the reality of the destruction of a country and the mass murder of its citizens, responds by telling cheap jokes, as though this were somehow something to laugh about. You are one sick, twisted sub-species of humanity.

Martin

More "sick, twisted sub-species" on video:

video links deleted

It just doesn't get any lower or more despicable than this. Thanks so much for helping us innocent souls to see the depravity and evil that lurks all around us.

What exactly is your point? That the obvious fact that some people tell tacky or even despicable jokes somehow justifies Ted's joke about what has been a murderous war crime by the U.S. government and a human tragedy for the Iraqi people?

Martin

Your pacifist viewpoint in opposition to present United States foreign policy is the sort of bizarre, dopey moral crusade one might expect to encounter on the Huffington Post or Code Pink or some other left-wing touchy-feely webforum. You are obviously free to advocate loving those who want to kill us or whatever foolishness strikes your fancy, but to post your hopelessly misguided views here and then proceed to mount a vicious personal attack on Ted was totally absurd. The fact that you (and that pompous libertarian "scholar" you admire so much) substitute stale, rude, overwrought invective for arguments just underscores the fact that you cannot logically defend this happy pacifist horsecrap.

You really ought to look up the word "pacifist" in the dictionary. I am not and never have been a pacifist. The fact that you think that opposing and morally condemning a murderous, non-defensive war launched by the U.S. government that has brought about the death of hundreds of thousands of people and that has turned 10% of the entire population into refugees, constitutes pacifism, shows how utterly distorted your view of pacifism is. This may come as a revelation to you, but the majority of countries in the world today manage to provide for their own defense just fine without launching murderous wars of aggression against other countries. It has been a rather long time since Switzerland last fought in a war. If you think that the Swiss are pacifists, I suggest you gather together an army and try launching an invasion of Switzerland. You'll see first hand just how pacifistic the Swiss are.

As to your view that they want to kill us, why don't you try doing some basic arithmetic. Add up the total number of Americans killed by Muslims. Then add up the total number of Muslims killed by Americans. See which of the two is greater. When you're done with this exercise, add up the total amount of American territory occupied by Muslims. Then add up the total amount of Muslim territory occupied by Americans. See which of the two is greater. Perhaps, after you have gone through this exercise, you will come to realize that a more logical conclusion would be for them to believe that "we" want to kill them, rather than for us to believe that "they" want to kill us.

Furthermore, I have never advocated that we "love" the Iraqis. This is a false dichotomy, that we must either love them or murder them and occupy their country. How about we leave them the hell alone, stop killing them, stop occupying their land, and get the hell out of their country?

Moreover, having a sense of humor is more important than ever during wartime. It is a way for people to maintain their perspective and their sanity. Attacking someone for that is just pure pompous bullshit. Give me a freakin' break.

My point was to show that your attack on Ted was baseless, silly and nonsensical. Which it obviously was.

I'm glad you can have a sense of humor about all of those dead, wounded, and homeless Iraqis. Yeah, that's really funny. Of course, it's easy for you to laugh about it. You can sit here safe in your cocoon, watching the devastation your government has inflicted on a people who live far, far away. And in your spare time, you can write moral justifications for this carnage. And you can pretend to be a highly moral person, an exemplar of the highest principles of objectivist morality, a believer in freedom, liberty, and individual rights. Except for those other nonpersons, that is.

Martin

So now Dennis is the racist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIrhVo1WA78

[caroljane]

Guys, this topic is about helping the movie succeed, and you are not even tangentially doing that right now.

Ted, you never answered my question in Post#6 on Will Conservatives Help thread.

[Selene]

But MOM! We don't want to do our homework...

We want to stay up and jump on the bed MOM!

Get the switch Carol!

Discipline the little buggers!

[Jerry Biggers]

I really don't want to throw cold water on the party, boys; but I think some people are losing perspective on this movie. Before I say anything critical here, I should mention that I saw the movie in Washington, D.C., a couple of weeks ago, and liked it! I posted my impressions of the movie on another thread, so I won't go into that again.

I get the impression that some of those who have not yet seen the movie are now getting overly excited, and my concern is that they not build their enthusiasm so high that the actual movie and/or the public (read, MSM media) reaction will crash their high hopes. Yes, it is fairly representative of Part One of the book, but that section also did not really get into Rand's Objectivist philosophy. All the major statements and speeches are in Parts Two and especially, Three.

What the un-initiated are going to see is primarily about the collectivist destruction of America's economic base and also a planting of the sub-theme that the creative inventors/innovators are disappearing from society at an accelerating rate. I asume that non-readers of the novel will get this (it's not exactly subtle). But if Rand fans are expecting that the movie will suddenly "open the eyes of those who cannot (or will not) see" and lead to the Randian renaissance, they are going to be hugely disappointed. What the move does is present "the problem," there is no indication of "the solution." That, of course, is in Part Three.

So, in terms of movie goers getting the essence of Rand's philosophy, it's not yet presented. Some people here have criticized the 1948 movie production of The Fountainhead for truncating, compressing, or even distorting Rand's views on individualism and collectivism. But I have to say that that movie gives a much better sampling of Rand's vision than is in the Atlas Shrugged - Part One movie. Once again, I liked the movie, but it will not inaugurate a rush to Objectivism (because it's "not in there"). Not yet, anyway. Hopefully, more viewers will be sufficientlyinterested to go out and read the book.

Also, as has already been mentioned in this thread, the movie is opening up on a relatively small number of screens on April 15. There is a campaign to get it on more screens, but the real intent of the producers for its major distribution is on DVD, not in the theaters. Recent emails from the "official" website have already hinted, in a not so subtle way (by asking fans to send a short video to their Youtube site of themselves exclaiming, "I am John Galt!"), that that is what is coming. These mini-videos are going to be included on the DVD release of the movie. This move to DVD is not necessarily bad, since that seems to be the ultimate distribution channel now for movies. But I think it also demonstrates the the producers are not planning on a campaign of "ATLAS SHRUGGED! - COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU!"

[caroljane]

But MOM! We don't want to do our homework...

We want to stay up and jump on the bed MOM!

Get the switch Carol!

Discipline the little buggers!

Answering back again! Just you wait till your father gets home!

[Selene]

But MOM! We don't want to do our homework...

We want to stay up and jump on the bed MOM!

Get the switch Carol!

Discipline the little buggers!

Answering back again! Just you wait till your father gets home!

Carol:

That is the way it should be, but those days are way over in the United States. Now, that would be a psychological threat that would bring down the child protective Nazi's in force!

Adam

[Selene]

Internet campaign to expand the theaters from my Libertarian Party e-mail today

"Without a major Hollywood studio behind the production, the distribution plan for the film is modeled after several successful internet campaigns to generate interest and excitement online through social networking sites (e.g. Paranormal Activity, a film made on a $15,000 shoestring budget in 2007 that ultimately grossed over $107 million, largely by having people request screenings at their local theater)."

Jerry:

This dovetails with Phil's post which had one of the movers behind the Tea Party increasing the number of theaters with it's campaign. I know I am getting a lot of folks who are going into NY City, Philadelphia and about five (5) to Washington, DC so far.

Adam