Shooting for Atlas Shrugged is underway.
No sign of Jolie or Pitt.
But they do have some guy from One Tree Hill directing and starring as John Galt, with a budget of $5 million and 5 weeks to adapt at least part of the 1000-plus-page tome...
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118020578.html?categoryid=4026&cs=1
QuoteThe long-brewing feature version of author Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" has begun shooting in Los Angeles as a $5 million indie produced by John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow.
Cameras began rolling over the weekend on a five-week shoot for "Atlas Shrugged Part One" with Paul Johansson directing from Brian Patrick O'Toole's script. Aglialoro would have lost the feature rights if the film wasn't in production by Saturday.
A spokesman for Aglialoro -- the CEO of exercise equipment producer Cybex -- said there will be at least one more "Atlas Shrugged" shot after the current film's completed. Rand's massive novel is divided into three parts, each consisting of 10 chapters.
The all-star cast...
QuoteJohansson ("One Tree Hill") portrays Galt. The lead role of railroad executive Dagny Taggart has gone to Taylor Schilling ("Mercy) and the part of Henry Reardon is being played by Grant Bowler ("Ugly Betty").
Michael Lerner ("A Serious Man") portrays lobbyist Wesley Mouch and director Nick Cassavetes has signed on for the Richard McNamara role. Other key cast include Matthew Marsdan as James Taggart and Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt.
"Atlas" also stars Edi Gathegi, Jsu Garcia, Rebecca Wisocky, Ethan Cohn, Patrick Fischer, Neill Barry, Christina Pickles and Nikki Klecha.
[19 year-old Pex]BONARTYME[/19 year-old Pex]
[RugDoctor]I'm going to do $10,000 worth of damage to your carpeting! Spow![/RugDoctor]
Tank was more animal than man when he started this thread.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 15, 2010, 09:36:11 PM
Tank was more animal than man when he started this thread.
(http://i.imgur.com/FzHOb.jpg)
(http://www.homebrewmegastore.co.uk/shop/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/b/l/blackberry_schnapps.jpg)
This is the longest I've ever seen an internet thread about Ayn Rand go while still being moderately amusing.
Who is John Galt?
Apparently, he is this guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPDEirVTZk)
Quote from: Eli on June 16, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
Who is John Galt?
Apparently, he is this guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPDEirVTZk)
I didn't even bother to look up who he was.
That's why I lose and Eli wins.
Quote from: Eli on June 16, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
Who is John Galt?
Apparently, he is this guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzPDEirVTZk)
Whoa. Crazy Joe Davola directed that episode!
That's a wrap!
http://www.atlassociety.org/filming-atlas-shrugged-wraps1
QuoteThe Hollywood press has taken a dismissive view of the project. How could an outsider hope to produce a successful film with so little time, a reported budget of $5 million, a director with limited film experience, and a cast without stars?
Offsetting those limitations, however, is the passion of the producers, cast, and crew to realize the vision of the novel. That's why Johansson took on the challenge of directing on such short notice. (Though Atlas will be his first film, Johansson has considerable experience directing TV, with an Emmy to his credit.) Schilling was attracted to the lead roll because she loved Rand's work, having read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Many crew members came on board at less than their usual fees just to be part of the project. As for the budget, the producers says the actual figure is at least twice the reported $5 million. And Atlas is not really a star vehicle. The power of an adaptation, and its ultimate success or failure, turn on how well it captures Rand's narrative and its meaning. As an independent production, this adaptation has pursued that goal directly, without having to bargain with studios, stars, or screenwriters who don't get it.
"Many crew members came on board at less than their usual fees just to be part of the project."
Careful, guys... Someone
could mistake this sort of thing for "altruism" and kick you out of the club.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html
(I know, I know... HuffPo.)
QuoteHowever, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."
But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.
In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 29, 2011, 11:56:15 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html
(I know, I know... HuffPo.)
QuoteHowever, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."
But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.
In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.
Glorious. That's awesome.
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/04/17/battlefield-train-an-atlas-shrugged-movie-review/
QuoteBattlefield: Earth is still my favorite film in the "so unbelievably bad you have to see it to believe it" genre, and it shares many similarities with Atlas. Both are cynical efforts to extract money from the wallets of blindly devoted followers of a patently silly belief system / cult of personality. Battlefield: Earth was made with the confidence that Scientologists would pay to see it no matter how bad it was, and I am afraid that the same motives underlie the decision to rush this sloppy, amateurish version of Atlas Shrugged into theaters. It ends with the disappeared Ellis Wyatt announcing in voiceover that the has gone Galt, emphatically stating "DON'T try to find me...I am ON STRIKE!" which caused the theater to erupt in an impromptu round of applause. The small crowd of office managers and dentists and petty bureaucrats so enjoyed identifying with the great Producer for two hours before heading home and preparing for another big day of running Northeast Georgia's fourth largest supplier of plumbing fixtures or filling out forms in the Office of Administrative Technicalities at the (public) University. And the cynical bastards who made this sad excuse for a film knew that no matter how much it sucked, society's frustrated, impotent petit bourgeoisie – lawyers, secretaries, cubicle dwellers, engineers, and assorted other educated, angry white people – would gladly hand over the price of admission for that brief thrill of feeling like society would give two flying shits if any of them joined Mr. Wyatt "on strike."
Atlas Shrugged: Part I is as good as anyone could expect a film based on the fiction of Ayn Rand to be. Shit begets shit.
I can't believe this is only part one.
Quote from: Bort on April 18, 2011, 11:39:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 18, 2011, 11:37:07 AM
I can't believe this is only part one.
I can...
I actually did read this book. I'm curious to see this movie but I have a feeling it'll just piss me off. Or put me to sleep.
Quote from: Slaky on April 18, 2011, 01:31:26 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 18, 2011, 11:39:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 18, 2011, 11:37:07 AM
I can't believe this is only part one.
I can...
I actually did read this book. I'm curious to see this movie but I have a feeling it'll just piss me off. Or put me to sleep.
All of THI above.
Quote from: Slaky on April 18, 2011, 01:31:26 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 18, 2011, 11:39:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 18, 2011, 11:37:07 AM
I can't believe this is only part one.
I can...
I actually did read this book. I'm curious to see this movie but I have a feeling it'll just piss me off. Or put me to sleep.
I read the book and liked it, despite the fact that Ms. Rand probably would have done well to have kept an editor as one of her houseboys. It could be made into a great movie -- or even a trilogy -- if done right, but the fact that it was done in 10 months on a tiny budget and no name actors suggests it will be a bigger bore than the book could be at times.
"I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0426-la-atlas-shrugged-movie,0,4479692.story)
Quote from: flannj on April 27, 2011, 07:57:05 AM
"I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0426-la-atlas-shrugged-movie,0,4479692.story)
If that guy could figure out a way to convert butthurt into dollars he'd have enough money to make parts 3 through 700.
Quote from: R-V on April 27, 2011, 08:46:32 AM
Quote from: flannj on April 27, 2011, 07:57:05 AM
"I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0426-la-atlas-shrugged-movie,0,4479692.story)
If that guy could figure out a way to convert butthurt into dollars he'd have enough money to make parts 3 through 700.
It can be done. Just look at Dick Cheney.
Quote from: R-V on April 27, 2011, 08:46:32 AM
Quote from: flannj on April 27, 2011, 07:57:05 AM
"I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0426-la-atlas-shrugged-movie,0,4479692.story)
If that guy could figure out a way to convert butthurt into dollars he'd have enough money to make parts 3 through 700.
And I can only assume that these quotes represent a mere drop in the bucket of a 6-hour Howard Roark-ian jeremiad on the integrity of the unsubmissive individual artist and the predations of a slave society.
Quote"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro said. "I'll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."
What? And deny the world the fruits of his incomparable genius? This is tragic.
Quote from: flannj on April 27, 2011, 07:57:05 AM
"I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0426-la-atlas-shrugged-movie,0,4479692.story)
He should be pleased that "Atlas Shrugged" has been rejected by the open market.
Quote from: Fork on April 27, 2011, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on April 27, 2011, 07:57:05 AM
"I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0426-la-atlas-shrugged-movie,0,4479692.story)
He should be pleased that "Atlas Shrugged" has been rejected by the open market.
I laughed.
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhvr00xYE61qczxc6o1_500.jpg)
Quote from: Brownie on April 19, 2011, 08:29:56 AM
I read the book and liked it, despite the fact that Ms. Rand probably would have done well to have kept an editor as one of her houseboys.
Nonsense. (http://www.avclub.com/articles/atlas-shrugged-producers-boldly-release-unregulate,65031/)
Has this (http://www.theatlasphere.com) been discussed? Ayn Rand dating site. Glorious.
Bump.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/20/on-the-set-of-atlas-shrugged-part-ii
QuoteIn a move that might prove controversial to fans of Part I, this new movie has been entirely recast—not a single actor reprises their role. Director Paul Johansson, meanwhile, has been replaced by John Putch (a TV veteran with many episodes of Scrubs and Cougar Town behind him).
...
Part IIs new Dagny Taggart—the railroad magnate heroine struggling to keep the motors of the world running while mysterious forces try to shut them down—is Samantha Mathis (perhaps most famously of Pump Up the Volume opposite Christian Slater).
Also:
Broken Arrow, opposite Christian Slater. And libtard environmentalist agitprop
FernGully: The Last Rainforest, with Christian Slater.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 24, 2012, 08:46:37 PM
Bump.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/20/on-the-set-of-atlas-shrugged-part-ii
QuoteIn a move that might prove controversial to fans of Part I, this new movie has been entirely recast—not a single actor reprises their role. Director Paul Johansson, meanwhile, has been replaced by John Putch (a TV veteran with many episodes of Scrubs and Cougar Town behind him).
...
Part IIs new Dagny Taggart—the railroad magnate heroine struggling to keep the motors of the world running while mysterious forces try to shut them down—is Samantha Mathis (perhaps most famously of Pump Up the Volume opposite Christian Slater).
Can't miss.
Quote from: Fork on April 25, 2012, 07:50:34 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 24, 2012, 08:46:37 PM
Bump.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/20/on-the-set-of-atlas-shrugged-part-ii
QuoteIn a move that might prove controversial to fans of Part I, this new movie has been entirely recast—not a single actor reprises their role. Director Paul Johansson, meanwhile, has been replaced by John Putch (a TV veteran with many episodes of Scrubs and Cougar Town behind him).
...
Part IIs new Dagny Taggart—the railroad magnate heroine struggling to keep the motors of the world running while mysterious forces try to shut them down—is Samantha Mathis (perhaps most famously of Pump Up the Volume opposite Christian Slater).
Can't miss.
I can't wait to see Abed's walk-on role.
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/atlas-shrugged-updated-for-the-current-financial-crisis
Spotted in the sidebar of this NYTimes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/us/politics/groups-shield-political-gifts-of-businesses.html)...
(http://i.imgur.com/6Qx8p.png)
I laughed.
Sometimes the invisible hand requires men of singular will and fortitude to sign internet petitions...
Demand Atlas to your Town! (http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/demand)
Look who's demanding Atlas! (http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/demanded/)
Atlanta appears to lead the country at the moment, with 867 people gonna demanding Atlas to their Town!
(Your loss, Ryan.)
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 25, 2012, 08:17:07 PM
Sometimes the invisible hand requires men of singular will and fortitude to sign internet petitions...
Demand Atlas to your Town! (http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/demand)
Look who's demanding Atlas! (http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/demanded/)
Atlanta appears to lead the country at the moment, with 867 people gonna demanding Atlas to their Town!
(Your loss, Ryan.)
Springfield, Illinois : 258 - TOP TEN! Way to go, Yeti.
(http://i.imgur.com/9QCed.jpg)
Bump.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 11, 2012, 09:32:48 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/9QCed.jpg)
Bump.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa)
Quote"I reject her philosophy," Ryan says firmly. "It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas," who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. "Don't give me Ayn Rand," he says.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 11, 2012, 10:40:02 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 11, 2012, 09:32:48 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/9QCed.jpg)
Bump.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa)
Quote"I reject her philosophy," Ryan says firmly. "It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas," who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. "Don't give me Ayn Rand," he says.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79597.html
QuoteIn 2003, the Wisconsin Republican told The Weekly Standard's (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/002/339ooaxm.asp) writer Katherine Mangu-Ward, now at the libertarian Reason magazine, that he gave out Rand's books as gifts and tried to make interns read it.
"I give out 'Atlas Shrugged' [by Ayn Rand] as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well... I try to make my interns read it," he said.
However, even then, Ryan pointed out that while he "looked into" Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, he is a Christian and reads the bible often.
In 2005, he said before the Objectivist organization the Atlas Society (http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again) that, "[T]he reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."
In 2009, in a multi-part video series (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1188874849092) posted to Facebook, Paul Ryan said that "what's unique about what's happening today in government, in the world, in America, is that it's as if we're living in an Ayn Rand novel right now. I think Ayn Rand did the best job of anybody to build a moral case of capitalism, and that morality of capitalism is under assault."
"Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most," he said in the second part of the series.
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
Sometimes I read books and decide that I like some of what the author had to say and I reject some other things. Ayn Rand is probably the most prominent example I can think of. Hunter Thompson is another. Sometimes I read things that help me better understand what I've read previously or see flaws in my former reasoning. I think that's a healthy way to read and to develop as a person. Is the fact that this dude used to like Ayn Rand more than he does now going to be an issue? Are people asshurt that he seems to have changed his mind? Or are they asshurt because he's all Christian-y? I'd like in on the asshurt (||) but I'm not sure where to direct it. Help?
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 13, 2012, 10:42:27 AM
Sometimes I read books and decide that I like some of what the author had to say and I reject some other things. Ayn Rand is probably the most prominent example I can think of. Hunter Thompson is another. Sometimes I read things that help me better understand what I've read previously or see flaws in my former reasoning. I think that's a healthy way to read and to develop as a person. Is the fact that this dude used to like Ayn Rand more than he does now going to be an issue? Are people asshurt that he seems to have changed his mind? Or are they asshurt because he's all Christian-y? I'd like in on the asshurt (||) but I'm not sure where to direct it. Help?
I think they're asshurt because he said he based a lot of his beliefs off Ayn Rand and then when it polled poorly, he said he rejected her ideas.
Quote from: Eli on August 13, 2012, 10:51:23 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 13, 2012, 10:42:27 AM
Sometimes I read books and decide that I like some of what the author had to say and I reject some other things. Ayn Rand is probably the most prominent example I can think of. Hunter Thompson is another. Sometimes I read things that help me better understand what I've read previously or see flaws in my former reasoning. I think that's a healthy way to read and to develop as a person. Is the fact that this dude used to like Ayn Rand more than he does now going to be an issue? Are people asshurt that he seems to have changed his mind? Or are they asshurt because he's all Christian-y? I'd like in on the asshurt (||) but I'm not sure where to direct it. Help?
I think they're asshurt because he said he based a lot of his beliefs off Ayn Rand and then when it polled poorly, he said he rejected her ideas.
It's hard to be a devoted Christian and simultaneously choke on Ayn Rand's dong.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 13, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 13, 2012, 10:51:23 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 13, 2012, 10:42:27 AM
Sometimes I read books and decide that I like some of what the author had to say and I reject some other things. Ayn Rand is probably the most prominent example I can think of. Hunter Thompson is another. Sometimes I read things that help me better understand what I've read previously or see flaws in my former reasoning. I think that's a healthy way to read and to develop as a person. Is the fact that this dude used to like Ayn Rand more than he does now going to be an issue? Are people asshurt that he seems to have changed his mind? Or are they asshurt because he's all Christian-y? I'd like in on the asshurt (||) but I'm not sure where to direct it. Help?
I think they're asshurt because he said he based a lot of his beliefs off Ayn Rand and then when it polled poorly, he said he rejected her ideas.
It's hard to be a devoted Christian and simultaneously choke on Ayn Rand's dong.
The Tea Party says otherwise. They don't say HOW. But they say otherwise.
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Indeed. LEAVE AQUINAS OUT OF THIS.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Quote from: Eli on August 13, 2012, 10:51:23 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 13, 2012, 10:42:27 AM
Sometimes I read books and decide that I like some of what the author had to say and I reject some other things. Ayn Rand is probably the most prominent example I can think of. Hunter Thompson is another. Sometimes I read things that help me better understand what I've read previously or see flaws in my former reasoning. I think that's a healthy way to read and to develop as a person. Is the fact that this dude used to like Ayn Rand more than he does now going to be an issue? Are people asshurt that he seems to have changed his mind? Or are they asshurt because he's all Christian-y? I'd like in on the asshurt (||) but I'm not sure where to direct it. Help?
I think they're asshurt because he said he based a lot of his beliefs off Ayn Rand and then when it polled poorly, he said he rejected her ideas.
That.
He's not saying he changed his mind. He's saying that the idea that he's adopted a particular
moral philosophy of economics, a philosophy of "looters" and "moochers" vs. "producers", from Rand is an "urban legend". Which is to say: that it was
never true.
And yet, here we find him in a 2009 campaign ad, lauding the morality of Randian economic philosophy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmW19uoyuO8)
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Aristotle?
Quote from: SKO on August 13, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Aristotle?
William Hickman?
Quote from: SKO on August 13, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Aristotle?
Heraclitus?
Quote from: Wheezer on August 13, 2012, 12:39:38 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 13, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Aristotle?
Heraclitus?
No man steps into the same individualist, capitalist utopia twice.
Quote from: Wheezer on August 13, 2012, 12:39:38 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 13, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Aristotle?
Heraclitus?
These are all good answers.
Quote from: Eli on August 13, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 13, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Aristotle?
William Hickman?
Today I learned. (http://web.archive.org/web/20110723210150/http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm)
QuoteIn her notes, Rand complains that poor Hickman has become the target of irrational and ugly mob psychology:
"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...
"This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."
...
Although the American people showed no sympathy for Hickman, Ayn Rand certainly did:
"And when we look at the other side of it -- there is a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy turned into a purposeless monster. By whom? By what? Is it not by that very society that is now yelling so virtuously in its role of innocent victim? He had a brilliant mind, a romantic, adventurous, impatient soul and a straight, uncompromising, proud character. What had society to offer him? A wretched, insane family as the ideal home, a Y.M.C.A. club as social honor, and a bank-page job as ambition and career...
"If he had any desires and ambitions -- what was the way before him? A long, slow, soul-eating, heart-wrecking toil and struggle; the degrading, ignoble road of silent pain and loud compromises....
"A strong man can eventually trample society under his feet. That boy was not strong enough. But is that his crime? Is it his crime that he was too impatient, fiery and proud to go that slow way? That he was not able to serve, when he felt worthy to rule; to obey, when he wanted to command?...
"He was given [nothing with which] to fill his life. What was he offered to fill his soul? The petty, narrow, inconsistent, hypocritical ideology of present-day humanity. All the criminal, ludicrous, tragic nonsense of Christianity and its morals, virtues, and consequences. Is it any wonder that he didn't accept it?"
I'd say young Ayn Rand compares favorably to a young Paul Tanner.
Quote from: Ayn Rand on August 13, 2012, 01:53:22 PM
It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...
QuoteWilliam Edward Hickman (1908 – October 19, 1928) was an American criminal responsible for the kidnapping, murder and dismemberment of Marion Parker, a 12-year-old girl. The Los Angeles Times referred to Hickman's actions as "the most horrible crime of the 1920's."
...
On December 19, Parker delivered the ransom in Los Angeles but in return Hickman delivered the girl's dismembered body. Her arms and legs had been severed and her internal organs removed. A towel stuffed into her body to absorb blood led police to Hickman's apartment building, but he managed to escape.
Then again, I did roll through a stop sign this morning, so who am I to condemn?
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 01:43:23 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 13, 2012, 12:39:38 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 13, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Aristotle?
Heraclitus?
These are all good answers.
Micky Spillane?
Quote from: PANK! on August 13, 2012, 02:34:38 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 01:43:23 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 13, 2012, 12:39:38 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 13, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Aristotle?
Heraclitus?
These are all good answers.
Micky Spillane?
Homer J. Simpson?
Quote from: CBStew on August 13, 2012, 05:37:45 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 13, 2012, 02:34:38 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 01:43:23 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 13, 2012, 12:39:38 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 13, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Aristotle?
Heraclitus?
These are all good answers.
Micky Spillane?
Homer J. Simpson?
(http://i.imgur.com/xTVrn.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/l311C.jpg)
Ms. Sinclair: Mrs. Simpson, do you know what a baby is saying when she reaches for her bottle?
Marge: "Baba"?
Ms. Sinclair: She's saying, "I am a leech."
Brigham Young and Ayn Rand vs. Bill Ayers and Neil Kinnock?
Rand wins in a landslide.
Atlas Shrugged beats "You Didn't Build That" every time.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 05:49:35 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 13, 2012, 05:37:45 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 13, 2012, 02:34:38 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 01:43:23 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 13, 2012, 12:39:38 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 13, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 12, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
Thomas Aquinas is so much better.
Give me the philosophies of people who were alive in fucking 1200 when the world was flat and no one knew what gravity was. Let's base our ideas on those people.
The difference is that Aquinas was one of Western civilization's foundational thinkers. Whereas Rand was mostly just a confused old crank.
Almost anything Ayn Rand said that I agree with was said better by an earlier writer.
Aristotle?
Heraclitus?
These are all good answers.
Micky Spillane?
Homer J. Simpson?
(http://i.imgur.com/xTVrn.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/l311C.jpg)
Ms. Sinclair: Mrs. Simpson, do you know what a baby is saying when she reaches for her bottle?
Marge: "Baba"?
Ms. Sinclair: She's saying, "I am a leech."
DRLP, dood. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=4307.msg161834#msg161834)
Quote from: Brownie on August 13, 2012, 10:40:54 PM
Brigham Young and Ayn Rand vs. Bill Ayers and Neil Kinnock?
Rand wins in a landslide.
Atlas Shrugged beats "You Didn't Build That" every time.
Have I mentioned that we spent as much time in Arkansas middle-school science class in the study of Dale Carnegie as we did in physical education studying hunter safety?
Quote from: Brownie on August 13, 2012, 10:40:54 PM
Atlas Shrugged beats "You Didn't Build That" every time.
You know that's not what he
said meant, right?
Edit: I should clarify. Technically, he said those four words. But that wasn't the ultimate point of his message.
QuoteYou Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers encouraged your hopes ... Coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We've already cheered the Olympians, let's also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities...
Damn Socialists...
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 14, 2012, 08:23:03 AM
QuoteYou Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers encouraged your hopes ... Coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We've already cheered the Olympians, let's also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities...
Damn Socialists...
Gabby Douglas and Lochte's parents are broke. I'm not cheering them.
Quote from: BH on August 14, 2012, 08:45:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 14, 2012, 08:23:03 AM
QuoteYou Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers encouraged your hopes ... Coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We've already cheered the Olympians, let's also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities...
Damn Socialists...
Gabby Douglas and Lochte's parents are broke. I'm not cheering them.
I'll cheer the parents of the Brazilian women's volleyball team, for making tall, hot daughters.
Quote from: Eli on August 14, 2012, 08:10:07 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 13, 2012, 10:40:54 PM
Atlas Shrugged beats "You Didn't Build That" every time.
You know that's not what he said meant, right?
Edit: I should clarify. Technically, he said those four words. But that wasn't the ultimate point of his message.
The complete sentence was: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that."
And he prefaced it by talking about the building of roads and other government services (financed by taxes paid in large measure by successful businesses and their owners). Truth is, no one running is advocating the abolition of taxes. You know that, right?
Quote from: Brownie on August 14, 2012, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 14, 2012, 08:10:07 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 13, 2012, 10:40:54 PM
Atlas Shrugged beats "You Didn't Build That" every time.
You know that's not what he said meant, right?
Edit: I should clarify. Technically, he said those four words. But that wasn't the ultimate point of his message.
The complete sentence was: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that."
And he prefaced it by talking about the building of roads and other government services (financed by taxes paid in large measure by successful businesses and their owners). Truth is, no one running is advocating the abolition of taxes. You know that, right?
So I have no one to vote for?
Quote from: Brownie on August 14, 2012, 09:10:38 AM
Truth is, no one running is advocating the abolition of taxes.
Well, not the entire abolition of them.
Quote from: Eli on August 14, 2012, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 14, 2012, 09:10:38 AM
Truth is, no one running is advocating the abolition of taxes.
Well, not the entire abolition of them.
Everyone running is a gutless asshole.
Quote from: Bort on August 14, 2012, 09:29:54 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 14, 2012, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 14, 2012, 09:10:38 AM
Truth is, no one running is advocating the abolition of taxes.
Well, not the entire abolition of them.
Everyone running is a gutless asshole.
Except us.
Quote from: Eli on August 14, 2012, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 14, 2012, 09:10:38 AM
Truth is, no one running is advocating the abolition of taxes.
Well, not the entire abolition of them.
Mostly just the abolition of Mitt Romney's taxes.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 14, 2012, 10:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 14, 2012, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 14, 2012, 09:10:38 AM
Truth is, no one running is advocating the abolition of taxes.
Well, not the entire abolition of them.
Mostly just the abolition of Mitt Romney's taxes.
Intrepid Reader Harry Reid: I have it on good authority that this happened 10 years ago.
Well I'll be goddamned... (http://trueblueliberal.blogspot.com/2012/07/ultimate-romney-running-mate-anagram.html)
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is an anagram of My ultimate Ayn Rand porn
Shut it down.
Quote from: CT III on August 14, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 14, 2012, 10:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 14, 2012, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 14, 2012, 09:10:38 AM
Truth is, no one running is advocating the abolition of taxes.
Well, not the entire abolition of them.
Mostly just the abolition of Mitt Romney's taxes.
Intrepid Reader Harry Reid: I have it on good authority that this happened 10 years ago.
NIXON ALWAYS WINS. AROOOOOOOOOOOOOO!