Here's a new movie coming out in the middle of April, with strong political themes:
Dig that no-name cast---is it because the right-wing producers couldn't get any names to star in this drivel?!
Lousy writers with idiotic cult followers like Raynd, have miserable track records at the box office, as previously displayed by L R Hubbard's massive movie turkey version of his "Battlefield Earth" book.
-- Modified on 2/19/2011 11:09:48 AM
Yes, its as likely to be a stinker as this youtube video:
This book, and idea come up ever so often when conservatives get brassy and ballsy.
There's nothing new under the sun.
There's nothing new under the sun.
They're already working on a sequel to this flick, but it's still being worked out on a storyboard. Here's a sample. 
Is that supposed to be Dagny saying "I certainly can't cook"? Clearly written by someone who hasn't read the book. She spends a few weeks working as John Galt's cook and housemaid. An electric equipment manufacturer grows cabbages in Galt's Gulch. Rearden didn't pay other people to create new alloys. He invented them himself. In fact, he started off as an employee in an iron mine. Most real-world entrepreneurs started that way. Andrew Carnegie worked in a factory and then as a telegraph messenger. John D. Rockefeller's first job was as an assistant bookkeeper. Edison worked as a telegraph operator. Ford was an assistant machinist. Donald Trump's first job was collecting cans and bottles for recycling with his father. Michael Dell of Dell computers started off washing dishes at a Chinese restaurant. Warren Buffet's first job was delivering newspapers. Dave Thomas of Wendy's restaurants started as an employee in a restaurant.
The idiocy that rich businessmen don't know how to do anything but order other people around is simply liberal, even communist bias and propaganda. Liberals seem to be very badly detached from reality.
I don't know of anyone who has tried to criticize Rand's novel or philosophy without massive, STUPID, ignorant misrepresentations, strawman arguments, and ridicule. Nobody can actually answer her with anything resembling a rational argument or reference to real life. Pathetic. Makes me laugh every time. And never for the reasons they intend, such as the idiotic cartoon posted by willywonka4u
-- Modified on 2/19/2011 5:07:51 PM
You're AWFULLY sensitive-------LMAO !
Sensitive? Someone who is laughing at you is sensitive?
As for Rand's philosophy being a ripoff of Nietzsche, another example of someone trying to criticize Rand without understanding her at all. Rand's philosophy is based on Aristotle's, with nothing at all from Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a subjectivist, believed in the supremacy of emotions over reason, in fact rejected reason itself. At most, Rand and Nietzsche were both individualists, of sorts. But they both come at idividualism in different ways, with radically different consequences. One consequence is that individualism means something entirely different to each of them.
Get a clue.
I am still laughing.
that Ms. Rand had much in common with L Ron Hubbard, which is a conclusion often reached by persons who do not truly understand either writer's philosophy.
As for Nietzsche, no question some of his ideas can be found in her work but the differences outweigh the similarities.
I think people like Priapus have only a very VERY superficial understanding of Rand, one which comes from reading only third hand accounts written by people who have a vested interest in discrediting her.
The subject matter , the language and the depictions related to capitalist exploitation would be rated NC -17.
Apparently you have no familiarity with Rand's work. She was into very rough sex, and it shows in the sex scenes in her books.
And you have probably a Marxist understanding of what capitalism is about. Distorted by the wrong moral philosophies and revisionist history.
Then the sex scenes aren't very explicit. So?
IMHO this is not a significant political movie. It will probably do well at the BO because of all of the buzz about it though. If it were directed by Roman Polanski , well thats a different story altogether.
While Liberals and hollywood will slam it like they did "Passion of the Christ", people will line up to see it!!!
History repeats itself, big suprise...
He will probably make a few million from it .
The left is already bashing it !!!!
Pity you don't have the $ to cover it-----
It's really funny. I drive around my town and see these signs that say "Make 100K from Home".
Man, I would STARVE on 100K !!!
I'm willing to bet I pay more in taxes than you make. With that said though, don't really care what you believe
Whale shit? LOL
Priapus53: I bet you can't make an argument against any of Rand's ideas without strawman arguments.
which puts you on the same low level as a Scientologist.
Marikiod was incorrect when he said Raynd & Hubbard have nothing in common ; they were both lousy writers who spawned "crazed cults".
As foolish as Rand's philosophy may be, it doesn't come close to the drivel of Scientology. It's amazing anyone believes this crap.
And can you please explain to me what is so foolish about a philosophy that says that reason is our means of knowing reality? That we should do our best to make our ideas and knowledge conform to reality? That freedom is the proper social and political condition of mankind?
Can you actually provide an actual argument?
-- Modified on 2/20/2011 4:36:52 PM
If you were to read all three to someone without a preexisting bias towards "mainstream" religion, all three would sound equally fantastic and unbelievable.
and of course so would the religions of Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos, Wiccans and every other fairy tale ever told. You really need to read some of this shit, you won't believe that anyone could finish one of these "holy texts" without bursting into sidesplitting laughter, and that includes our very own "Holy Bible". LR Hubbard has nothing on the writers of these "accepted" fairy tales.
First of all, don't include me among those who think the Bible, Koran or any other traditional religion is anything but primitive bullshit. But at least the people who wrote those myths had an excuse: "science" didn't exist and they had to explain natural phenomena by attributing them to some god-like force. What was L. Ron's excuse? Plus, as nutty as the old and new testaments and the Koran are, they can't hold a candle to Scientology's idiotic crap.
For the fucking money, why the fuck else do you think he did it. just like with Michael Moore, Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, none of these people are stupid, it's their followers that are morons.
and if you really think that L Ron Hubbard's shit is really any stupider than any of the other "mainstream" fairy tales, you really need to reread the bible. It is every bit as ridiculous as anything L Ron Hubbard has ever written. The fact that it was written thousands of years ago doesn't change the fact that literally billions of people still accept it as the "word of God" give me a fucking bread already
"Re-read" the Bible? Are you shitting me! I've never read it to begin with! LMFAO! There are some things that are so dumb, ya just know! Same for L. Ron. If I want to read sci-fi I'll read Asimov.
And as for why billions of people across the glove believe this crap, well, to paraphrase Mencken:
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the primitive stupidity of humanity. At least 5,000 years ago people had an excuse for ignorance. Now? Not so much.
-- Modified on 2/20/2011 10:35:04 PM
Scientology is no more, and no less ridiculous than any other religion. The fact that we should know better by now is irrelevent.
You prove me right. I have some interesting disagreements with Ayn Rand. Not that you woul understand them, having only a superficial understanding of the philosophy. It would be like discussing a specific implication of quantum mechanics with someone who thinks that Newton's law of gravity is "what goes up, must come down".
A cultist is pressured to leave his or her home for the cult, give up earthly possessions to the cult leader. I have done none of those. I do not actually belong to any Objectivist organization. I am simply an admirer of her work who has taken the basics of her philosophy as the core of my own, and going far beyond the skeleton of a philosophy that she was able to communicate in her books.
You prove you have no clue. You are unable to offer a real argument against any of her ideas without the use of obvious logical fallacies such as personal attacks and strawman arguments.
So what is it you are so scared about, that you have to rant against ideas you disagree with so venomously? You don't even understand what you are criticizing, but you show so much hatred of it. This can only be explained by some kind of fear. What are you so scared of?
BTW, that is not an argument. It is what is known in philosophy as an ad hominem attack. That is something called a "fallacy". Can you say "fallacy"?
-- Modified on 2/20/2011 4:39:12 PM