Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 > Pete's not alone in his thinkng indeed. He is far from alone; he is but one > among the faceless, brainless masses that overshadow and outvoice common sense, respectability and decency in our world. FACELESS???????? You FUCKING HYPOCRITE! I'm not the one hiding in anonymity. If you had any brains or common sense you wouldnt have said that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm? Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the Triangle Shirt Waist company? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm? Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the Triangle Shirt Waist company? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm? Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the Triangle Shirt Waist company? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 maybe you should make sense. Who are you talking about that is both steppist and Randist? WTF is the Triangle Shirt Waist company? WTF does this have to do with anything? Re: Libertarian Rand > > Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also > be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it > might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm? > > Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that > resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the > Triangle Shirt Waist company? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 maybe you should make sense. Who are you talking about that is both steppist and Randist? WTF is the Triangle Shirt Waist company? WTF does this have to do with anything? Re: Libertarian Rand > > Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also > be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it > might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm? > > Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that > resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the > Triangle Shirt Waist company? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 maybe you should make sense. Who are you talking about that is both steppist and Randist? WTF is the Triangle Shirt Waist company? WTF does this have to do with anything? Re: Libertarian Rand > > Isnt it rather interesting though that a rabid steppist should also > be a rabid Randist, cowardlyguy? Wouldnt that rather suggest that it > might be the Randists who are cerebrally challenged hmm? > > Tell me, is it " decent " to have a laissez-faire capitalism that > resulted in the deaths of over 100 ppl, mostly very young women, a the > Triangle Shirt Waist company? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you had no face. Re: Libertarian Rand > > > > Pete's not alone in his thinkng indeed. He is far from alone; he is > but one > > among the faceless, brainless masses that overshadow and outvoice > common sense, respectability and decency in our world. > > FACELESS???????? You FUCKING HYPOCRITE! > > I'm not the one hiding in anonymity. If you had any brains or common > sense you wouldnt have said that! > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 again you arent doing a very good job of ignoring me. I think you must be powerless. You should start Pete anonymous. Get some folks coerced to it. Maybe get a federal handout or two. > maybe you should make sense. Who are you talking about that is both > steppist and Randist? Me ex sponsor, who I mentioned in the post you responded to. > WTF is the Triangle Shirt Waist company? WTF >does this have to do with anything? This was discussed a while back, presumably before you joined. In abt 1920 or so there was a horrendous fire at that company's factory that resulted in the death of over 100 ppl, mostly young women. An exit to the fire escape was locked shut and it collapsed in the heat anyway. In those much more laissez-faire capitalist times, fire regulations were very slack, fire ladders were too short to reach the top floors, and there was no inspectorate to ensure that safety standards were kept anyway. Emergency crews watched helplessly as agonized girls leapt to their deaths. In the aftermath it was stated by some politicians there was no point in having toughter fire regulations because they were impossible to enforce anyway. Now, wouldnt a little bigger bureaucracy, getting in the way of all those free-spirited laissez-faire capitalists making their money, and pasing fire regulations and having more bureaucrats going round doing random checks and such like be rather handy to have prevented this tragedy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you >had no face. What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable. The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you >had no face. What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable. The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you >had no face. What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable. The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 did you watch the Super Bowl or have you ever? Were the faces in the crowd distinguishable? Why are you playing this game of bullshit now? You are right (wow that was quite a deduction Petos) there are so many of you, that the truth is seldom heard and only the communist bullshit of the folks like you that permeates, the air, the radio waves, TV and print. Your view is prevailing of course, this is why I complain because communism is prevailing. In pure democracy there is no other destiny besides pure communism, and with that destiny only comes war, when those who support those who steal become fed up and revolt. That will happen, it always does. Steal from the rich to feed the poor til there are no rich no more... but the rich see that coming and do something about it, like kill a bunch of pests, little leeches, the thieves that steal their money. You just don't get that. People don't like to be robbed. It is not right to be robbed. I guess if you'd ever had anything you would know that. Re: Libertarian Rand > > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you > >had no face. > > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable. > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 did you watch the Super Bowl or have you ever? Were the faces in the crowd distinguishable? Why are you playing this game of bullshit now? You are right (wow that was quite a deduction Petos) there are so many of you, that the truth is seldom heard and only the communist bullshit of the folks like you that permeates, the air, the radio waves, TV and print. Your view is prevailing of course, this is why I complain because communism is prevailing. In pure democracy there is no other destiny besides pure communism, and with that destiny only comes war, when those who support those who steal become fed up and revolt. That will happen, it always does. Steal from the rich to feed the poor til there are no rich no more... but the rich see that coming and do something about it, like kill a bunch of pests, little leeches, the thieves that steal their money. You just don't get that. People don't like to be robbed. It is not right to be robbed. I guess if you'd ever had anything you would know that. Re: Libertarian Rand > > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you > >had no face. > > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable. > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 did you watch the Super Bowl or have you ever? Were the faces in the crowd distinguishable? Why are you playing this game of bullshit now? You are right (wow that was quite a deduction Petos) there are so many of you, that the truth is seldom heard and only the communist bullshit of the folks like you that permeates, the air, the radio waves, TV and print. Your view is prevailing of course, this is why I complain because communism is prevailing. In pure democracy there is no other destiny besides pure communism, and with that destiny only comes war, when those who support those who steal become fed up and revolt. That will happen, it always does. Steal from the rich to feed the poor til there are no rich no more... but the rich see that coming and do something about it, like kill a bunch of pests, little leeches, the thieves that steal their money. You just don't get that. People don't like to be robbed. It is not right to be robbed. I guess if you'd ever had anything you would know that. Re: Libertarian Rand > > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you > >had no face. > > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable. > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Your ex sponsor couldn't be Randist and steppist. Randist as you call it has no room for religion, and certainly not for Christianity and good deeds shit. So he's insane. thats why I said that makes sense or whatever I said comparing it to getting dropped off the roof. He did a good job passing it on - his insanity that is. I am not crying about your sob story. Those girls were stupid and should have known better. You try to pass the buck for them. Try to blame someone else for their own ineptitude and irresponsibility. Just like you, I suppose. Why is it my job to make sure someone else isn't a stupid fool? Its not because everyone knows there is nothing I can do about that. I can't do anything about that, so why then is it my job to make sure the stupid fool doesn't get hurt? Re: Libertarian Rand > again you arent doing a very good job of ignoring me. I think you > must be powerless. You should start Pete anonymous. Get some folks > coerced to it. Maybe get a federal handout or two. > > > > maybe you should make sense. Who are you talking about that is both > > steppist and Randist? > > Me ex sponsor, who I mentioned in the post you responded to. > > > WTF is the Triangle Shirt Waist company? WTF > >does this have to do with anything? > > This was discussed a while back, presumably before you joined. In abt > 1920 or so there was a horrendous fire at that company's factory that > resulted in the death of over 100 ppl, mostly young women. An exit to > the fire escape was locked shut and it collapsed in the heat anyway. > > In those much more laissez-faire capitalist times, fire regulations > were very slack, fire ladders were too short to reach the top floors, > and there was no inspectorate to ensure that safety standards were > kept anyway. Emergency crews watched helplessly as agonized girls > leapt to their deaths. > > In the aftermath it was stated by some politicians there was no point > in having toughter fire regulations because they were impossible to > enforce anyway. > > Now, wouldnt a little bigger bureaucracy, getting in the way of all > those free-spirited laissez-faire capitalists making their money, and > pasing fire regulations and having more bureaucrats going round doing > random checks and such like be rather handy to have prevented this > tragedy? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 > > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say you > > >had no face. > > > > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you > > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable. > > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that we > > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, because I > > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if there > > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should prevail? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 > I am not crying about your sob story. Those girls were stupid >and should have known better. Now this is where it stops being funny. This confirms what I already suspected, that you arent playing with a full deck. Are you the guy whose response to my advocacy of gun control was " Anyone wants to take away my guns, let them just try. " ? If so I am very, very glad I dont have you a neighbour. So, this is where it stops being funny and is now very offensive, so I will be ignoring you from now on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Look at the 1960s when the rich did a pretty good number on the poor. It always happens. Its not the decency of Libertarianism you dolt. Its human nature, only to take so much then strike against. Re: Libertarian Rand > > > > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say > you > > > >had no face. > > > > > > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you > > > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable. > > > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that > we > > > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, > because I > > > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if > there > > > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should > prevail? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Look at the 1960s when the rich did a pretty good number on the poor. It always happens. Its not the decency of Libertarianism you dolt. Its human nature, only to take so much then strike against. Re: Libertarian Rand > > > > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say > you > > > >had no face. > > > > > > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you > > > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable. > > > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that > we > > > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, > because I > > > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if > there > > > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should > prevail? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Look at the 1960s when the rich did a pretty good number on the poor. It always happens. Its not the decency of Libertarianism you dolt. Its human nature, only to take so much then strike against. Re: Libertarian Rand > > > > > Read the sentence again. It says faceless masses - I didn't say > you > > > >had no face. > > > > > > What a ridiculous copout. you said I was part of that mass and you > > > clearly implied that Rand critics were in some way unidentifiable. > > > The only other interpretation is that there are so many of us that > we > > > cannot be picked out in the crowd. I rather like that idea, > because I > > > certainly do believe and hope that there are many of us, and if > there > > > are so many of us, then maybe in a democracy our view should > prevail? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 oh I am sorry I offended you. When you need help and I am there and watch you drown because you stole from me, I won't feel sad. Oh you say thats not right, thats not Christian, thats bad. Or thats not human. Only a Christian or otherwise insane person could be so twisted to feel sadness when his oppressor dies. Those girls may not have been oppressors, but I owe them nothing, I certainly wasn't oppressing them. I don't even owe them sadness, that was taught by religion and social epectations. And just because I don't support your fire codes and altruism you think its not funny. Well I don't support the fire codes if they stole the money from me to make them. But I don't know what your problem is. You act like its someone else's job to feed you and to employ you. If you go into a place and it looks unsafe, why would you stay there? They had a choice, they chose badly, its not my fault, Pete. I guess its your fault. Too bad you can't earn a dime to pay for their fire codes and too bad you can't employ anyone because you are too busy demanding that others feed and employ you. You are useless, but you expect to be fed, and you steal your food from those who would employ you, commie fuck. Why should you work for them, there are enough of you little useless commie thieves to just steal from them instead, until they kill some of you off (ever notice how there are wars pretty frequently?) And Rita talks about personal responsibility. in the other thread. Commies don't care about that - its the rich guy's responsibility. Re: Libertarian Rand > > > > I am not crying about your sob story. Those girls were stupid > >and should have known better. > > Now this is where it stops being funny. This confirms what I already > suspected, that you arent playing with a full deck. Are you the guy > whose response to my advocacy of gun control was " Anyone wants to take > away my guns, let them just try. " ? If so I am very, very glad I dont > have you a neighbour. > > So, this is where it stops being funny and is now very offensive, so I > will be ignoring you from now on. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 it wasn't me Re: Libertarian Rand > > > > I am not crying about your sob story. Those girls were stupid > >and should have known better. > > Now this is where it stops being funny. This confirms what I already > suspected, that you arent playing with a full deck. Are you the guy > whose response to my advocacy of gun control was " Anyone wants to take > away my guns, let them just try. " ? If so I am very, very glad I dont > have you a neighbour. > > So, this is where it stops being funny and is now very offensive, so I > will be ignoring you from now on. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 I like the way you intellectualize it so that no one is socialist/communist. Not you, not the Nazis, only the Russkies, right? Re: Libertarian Rand > > > > The Nazis were socialists, and Rand was > > no socialist. I haven't read _The_Fountainhead_ or seen the > > movie, but I have trouble believing Rand published anything > > even vaguely Nazi-like. > > While the Nazis indeed called themselves socialists, to describe them > as socialists is similar to on the basis of their name describing > Zhirinowsky's Liberal Democrats as liberals and democrats, or to > say that as Republicans oppose Democrats, they arent democrats, etc. > etc. > > Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism. > Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire > competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned > about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was > extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt > seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any > scientific discovery since Newton! > > However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of > Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant > individualism. > > P. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand novels as vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys based on ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who are portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it when she makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen win out in the end. However... it's really QUITE different. The fascists valued the individual only as a component of a greater entity -- State or Volk or whatever -- whereas for Rand there is nothing greater than the individual. I'm not up on Nazi theory, but I did once read an essay by Mussolini on the nature of Fascism. Mussolini, as he expressed himself, could have been the perfect model for any Rand villain. In fact that's one of the main problems with the novels. Dialogue is always either a little Mussolini speech or an anti-Mussolini speech. It wears thin... --wally Re: Libertarian Rand > > > > The Nazis were socialists, and Rand was > > no socialist. I haven't read _The_Fountainhead_ or seen the > > movie, but I have trouble believing Rand published anything > > even vaguely Nazi-like. > > While the Nazis indeed called themselves socialists, to describe them > as socialists is similar to on the basis of their name describing > Zhirinowsky's Liberal Democrats as liberals and democrats, or to > say that as Republicans oppose Democrats, they arent democrats, etc. > etc. > > Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism. > Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire > competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned > about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was > extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt > seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any > scientific discovery since Newton! > > However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of > Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant > individualism. > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.