|
Building stuff
I was talked into reading Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" recently and
started it reluctantly. In the past, I tried reading "The Fountainhead" and was bored stiff by it so never tried to read "Atlas Shrugged". "Atlas" starts slow but does get better. In the book, Rand's protagonist is an engineer who builds a railroad and while she is riding on it for the first time, she looks at the motors on the locomotive and thinks of them as "morality cast in steel", a line that appeals to me. Building something that is useful is truly meaningful which is why so many of us are driven to do so. Rand posits that it is sinful to have a purposeless life, something to which I can agree but so many people have not yet found a purpose. People who write software probably get the same good feeling when their code runs well. Cabinet makers probably take pride in seeing their work used. Artists take pride in seeing their work done. It seems to be a human impulse to build things, to take raw materials from nature and make something distinctly human. It is now clear to me why I build so many boats, campers, spectrometers (work), etc. However, this leaves me wondering how Jackson Pollock ever knew when one of his paintings was finished. |
Building stuff
On Mar 17, 10:51*am, Frogwatch wrote:
I was talked into reading Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" recently and started it reluctantly. *In the past, I tried reading "The Fountainhead" and was bored stiff by it so never tried to read "Atlas Shrugged". *"Atlas" starts slow but does get better. In the book, Rand's protagonist is an engineer who builds a railroad and while she is riding on it for the first time, she looks at the motors on the locomotive and thinks of them as "morality cast in steel", a line that appeals to me. *Building something that is useful is truly meaningful which is why so many of us are driven to do so. Rand posits that it is sinful to have a purposeless life, something to which I can agree but so many people have not yet found a purpose. People who write software probably get the same good feeling when their code runs well. *Cabinet makers probably take pride in seeing their work used. *Artists take pride in seeing their work done. *It seems to be a human impulse to build things, to take raw materials from nature and make something distinctly human. *It is now clear to me why I build so many boats, campers, spectrometers (work), etc. However, this leaves me wondering how Jackson Pollock ever knew when one of his paintings was finished. I agree. There is nothing like sense of accomplishment. I don't understand how people who cannot, and won't do something for themselves are ever happy. Some people, no matter what the task, simply have someone do it for them. |
Building stuff
I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com |
Building stuff
On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna
wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. |
Building stuff
Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. |
Building stuff
On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". Another theme of the book is "If we maximize fairness (as defined by equal access to resources), everybody becomes poor". My biggest problem with the book is with Rands basic philosophy that morality is defined by doing what is best for you as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else and that "charitable acts" that do not benefit yourself are nonsense. These are somewhat at odds with Judea- Christian morality. The first part of the previous sentence is a subset of J-C morality but the second is at odds with J-C morality. J- C morality says that one should do "charitable acts" even if they do not benefit yourself in any way. I mostly subscribe to J-C morality although the part about charitable acts is NOT logically defensible. Rand's morality is logically defensible. Consequently, one could say that non-self interested charitable acts are based on religious ideas so the govt should not engage in them although the govt should engage in self interest that happens to be in others interest. For example, my sister argues that the US intervening in Bosnia was a high form of morality because we had no interest in doing so but that intervening in Iraq was wrong because although we did remove Saddam, we had self interest in doing so. I argue that if we had to choose one or the other, that intervening in Iraq was more logically defensible because we did have an interest in doing so. |
Building stuff
Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. |
Building stuff
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:47:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". Another theme of the book is "If we maximize fairness (as defined by equal access to resources), everybody becomes poor". My biggest problem with the book is with Rands basic philosophy that morality is defined by doing what is best for you as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else and that "charitable acts" that do not benefit yourself are nonsense. These are somewhat at odds with Judea- Christian morality. The first part of the previous sentence is a subset of J-C morality but the second is at odds with J-C morality. J- C morality says that one should do "charitable acts" even if they do not benefit yourself in any way. I mostly subscribe to J-C morality although the part about charitable acts is NOT logically defensible. Rand's morality is logically defensible. Consequently, one could say that non-self interested charitable acts are based on religious ideas so the govt should not engage in them although the govt should engage in self interest that happens to be in others interest. For example, my sister argues that the US intervening in Bosnia was a high form of morality because we had no interest in doing so but that intervening in Iraq was wrong because although we did remove Saddam, we had self interest in doing so. I argue that if we had to choose one or the other, that intervening in Iraq was more logically defensible because we did have an interest in doing so. I've never, to my knowledge, performed a charitable act of any kind that did not benefit me. The question becomes, "How do you define 'benefit'?" If I donate a day's labor to the church, I get nothing in return *except* a feeling of satisfaction for having given something. Donating cash to a breast cancer foundation does me no good, except for a feeling of satisfaction. Without that feeling of satisfaction, I doubt if there would be any charitable acts. Giving away a dollar to get thirty cents back on income tax sure isn't a way to get wealthy. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson |
Building stuff
On Mar 17, 3:56 pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. Clearly HK did not understand the books because his ideas are totally at odds with what Rand says in the book. In fact, she specifically says that a "purposeless life is sinful" and has contempt for a character who is rich but does not do anything with his wealth but be an idle playboy. By contrast, she has admiration for the characters who build things that enable others to prosper. How would HK define "responsibility"? Rand would define it to do something that benefits onesself without being detrimental to others. In general, she thinks that this enables others to benefit too. |
Building stuff
Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:56 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. Clearly HK did not understand the books because his ideas are totally at odds with what Rand says in the book. In fact, she specifically says that a "purposeless life is sinful" and has contempt for a character who is rich but does not do anything with his wealth but be an idle playboy. By contrast, she has admiration for the characters who build things that enable others to prosper. How would HK define "responsibility"? Rand would define it to do something that benefits onesself without being detrimental to others. In general, she thinks that this enables others to benefit too. Hehehe. Go build another abomination and leave the lit reviews to those who understand what they read. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. |
Building stuff
Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:56 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. Clearly HK did not understand the books because his ideas are totally at odds with what Rand says in the book. In fact, she specifically says that a "purposeless life is sinful" and has contempt for a character who is rich but does not do anything with his wealth but be an idle playboy. By contrast, she has admiration for the characters who build things that enable others to prosper. How would HK define "responsibility"? Rand would define it to do something that benefits onesself without being detrimental to others. In general, she thinks that this enables others to benefit too. Turgidity personified. Her philosophies are at best sophomoric. Almost everyone has dismissed her as a philosophical hack. I remember reading some comments form Bill Buckley about her years ago. But...if her ossified thinking floats your boat...hey. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. |
Building stuff
On Mar 17, 3:56 pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. I am not Republican. However, HK is obviously wrong because Rand's morality is clearly at odds with Judeo-Christian morality and many Repubs are Judeo-Christians. Perhaps some Repubs are Randians but certainly not most. HK does not define "social responsibility" so I cannot reply to that charge. I believe that Rand would define "social responsibility" as "maximizing individual freedoms". Unfortunately, we know from experience that this often has undesireable side effects. |
Building stuff
Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:44 pm, GC Boater wrote: On Mar 17, 4:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:56 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. Clearly HK did not understand the books because his ideas are totally at odds with what Rand says in the book. In fact, she specifically says that a "purposeless life is sinful" and has contempt for a character who is rich but does not do anything with his wealth but be an idle playboy. By contrast, she has admiration for the characters who build things that enable others to prosper. How would HK define "responsibility"? Rand would define it to do something that benefits onesself without being detrimental to others. In general, she thinks that this enables others to benefit too. Turgidity personified. Her philosophies are at best sophomoric. Almost everyone has dismissed her as a philosophical hack. I remember reading some comments form Bill Buckley about her years ago. But...if her ossified thinking floats your boat...hey. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Attaboy Krausie. You tell ‘em! By the way, what year did you graduate from Yale? I think that HK read the DNC abridged version where they left out discussions of ideas. The correct spelling of "Philosophical Hack" is "Noam Chomsky". These days, few people would claim that Rand's ideas would work by themselves anymore than anybody (OK, anybody but HK and university profs) would claim communism would work. Both are extreme versions of philosophies that are unrealistic, you know, sorta like Obamanism. If HK HAD actually read the book, he would have known that Rand rejects Christianity so it cannot appeal to most Repubs, so we must conclude HK did NOT read the book. Any more statements from ignorance Harry? D'oh. "Rand rejects Christianity, so it cannot appeal to most Repubs." Now *that* is the very definition of naivete. *You* think Republicans who claim to be Christian *are* Christian. snerk Of course, according to Village Idiot "Just Hate," behavior has nothing to do with Christianity. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. |
Building stuff
On Mar 17, 4:19*pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:56 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish).. But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. *Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. *At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. *Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP *"I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. * :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. *It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. Clearly HK did not understand the books because his ideas are totally at odds with what Rand says in the book. *In fact, she specifically says that a "purposeless life is sinful" and has contempt for a character who is rich but does not do anything with his wealth but be an idle playboy. *By contrast, she has admiration for the characters who build things that enable others to prosper. How would HK define "responsibility"? *Rand would define it to do something that benefits onesself without being detrimental to others. In general, she thinks that this enables others to benefit too. Turgidity personified. Her philosophies are at best sophomoric. Almost everyone has dismissed her as a philosophical hack. I remember reading some comments form Bill Buckley about her years ago. But...if her ossified thinking floats your boat...hey. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Attaboy Krausie. You tell ‘em! By the way, what year did you graduate from Yale? |
Building stuff
On Mar 17, 8:44 pm, GC Boater wrote:
On Mar 17, 4:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:56 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it.. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. Clearly HK did not understand the books because his ideas are totally at odds with what Rand says in the book. In fact, she specifically says that a "purposeless life is sinful" and has contempt for a character who is rich but does not do anything with his wealth but be an idle playboy. By contrast, she has admiration for the characters who build things that enable others to prosper. How would HK define "responsibility"? Rand would define it to do something that benefits onesself without being detrimental to others. In general, she thinks that this enables others to benefit too. Turgidity personified. Her philosophies are at best sophomoric. Almost everyone has dismissed her as a philosophical hack. I remember reading some comments form Bill Buckley about her years ago. But...if her ossified thinking floats your boat...hey. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Attaboy Krausie. You tell ‘em! By the way, what year did you graduate from Yale? I think that HK read the DNC abridged version where they left out discussions of ideas. The correct spelling of "Philosophical Hack" is "Noam Chomsky". These days, few people would claim that Rand's ideas would work by themselves anymore than anybody (OK, anybody but HK and university profs) would claim communism would work. Both are extreme versions of philosophies that are unrealistic, you know, sorta like Obamanism. If HK HAD actually read the book, he would have known that Rand rejects Christianity so it cannot appeal to most Repubs, so we must conclude HK did NOT read the book. Any more statements from ignorance Harry? |
Building stuff
On Mar 17, 10:27 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:44 pm, GC Boater wrote: On Mar 17, 4:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:56 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP "I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. Clearly HK did not understand the books because his ideas are totally at odds with what Rand says in the book. In fact, she specifically says that a "purposeless life is sinful" and has contempt for a character who is rich but does not do anything with his wealth but be an idle playboy. By contrast, she has admiration for the characters who build things that enable others to prosper. How would HK define "responsibility"? Rand would define it to do something that benefits onesself without being detrimental to others. In general, she thinks that this enables others to benefit too. Turgidity personified. Her philosophies are at best sophomoric. Almost everyone has dismissed her as a philosophical hack. I remember reading some comments form Bill Buckley about her years ago. But...if her ossified thinking floats your boat...hey. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Attaboy Krausie. You tell ‘em! By the way, what year did you graduate from Yale? I think that HK read the DNC abridged version where they left out discussions of ideas. The correct spelling of "Philosophical Hack" is "Noam Chomsky". These days, few people would claim that Rand's ideas would work by themselves anymore than anybody (OK, anybody but HK and university profs) would claim communism would work. Both are extreme versions of philosophies that are unrealistic, you know, sorta like Obamanism. If HK HAD actually read the book, he would have known that Rand rejects Christianity so it cannot appeal to most Repubs, so we must conclude HK did NOT read the book. Any more statements from ignorance Harry? In 2007, KOS took a survey of readers and fou8ind that 64% thought that the ideas of Karl Marx were relevant to their lives today. So, we have 64% dems who think the ideas of a failed writer from the 1850s whose ideas whenever they were tried resulted in reducing the standard of living to pre-industrial levels and resulted in the intentional killing of 100 million people is somehow relevant but HK thinks a writer from 1957 who inspired people to start businesses that employed people is a "hack philosopher"? |
Building stuff
On Mar 17, 5:41*pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 8:44 pm, GC Boater wrote: On Mar 17, 4:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:56 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish). But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. *Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. *At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. *Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP *"I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. * :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. *It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. Clearly HK did not understand the books because his ideas are totally at odds with what Rand says in the book. *In fact, she specifically says that a "purposeless life is sinful" and has contempt for a character who is rich but does not do anything with his wealth but be an idle playboy. *By contrast, she has admiration for the characters who build things that enable others to prosper. How would HK define "responsibility"? *Rand would define it to do something that benefits onesself without being detrimental to others.. In general, she thinks that this enables others to benefit too. Turgidity personified. Her philosophies are at best sophomoric. Almost everyone has dismissed her as a philosophical hack. I remember reading some comments form Bill Buckley about her years ago. But...if her ossified thinking floats your boat...hey. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - AttaboyKrausie. *You tell ‘em! *By the way, what year did you graduate from Yale? I think that HK read the DNC abridged version where they left out discussions of ideas. *The correct spelling of "Philosophical Hack" is "Noam Chomsky". These days, few people would claim that Rand's ideas would work by themselves anymore than anybody (OK, anybody but HK and university profs) would claim communism would work. *Both are extreme versions of philosophies that are unrealistic, you know, sorta like Obamanism. If HK HAD actually read the book, he would have known that Rand rejects Christianity so it cannot appeal to most Repubs, so we must conclude HK did NOT read the book. *Any more statements from ignorance Harry? D'oh. "Rand rejects Christianity, so it cannot appeal to most Repubs." Now *that* is the very definition of naivete. *You* think Republicans who claim to be Christian *are* Christian. *snerk Of course, according to Village Idiot "Just Hate," behavior has nothing to do with Christianity. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Attaboy Krausie, you got 'em good. But what year did you graduate from Yale? |
Building stuff
HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I saw an interview where this book was held up as a justification for the pure greed displayed by the "business leaders" of the US that take huge friggin bonuses for a job poorly done. That, old friend, is something displayed prominently in corrupt communist societies. Couple this with the loss of free thought and speech as well as major corporations being so powerful that they cannot be challenged by the government and we see the destruction of the American ideal. If this greedy scum want to punish us by stepping down (as in the fictional novel you're reading) from the jobs they have failed at, I say they'd be doing America a great service. |
Building stuff
mmc wrote:
HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I saw an interview where this book was held up as a justification for the pure greed displayed by the "business leaders" of the US that take huge friggin bonuses for a job poorly done. That, old friend, is something displayed prominently in corrupt communist societies. Couple this with the loss of free thought and speech as well as major corporations being so powerful that they cannot be challenged by the government and we see the destruction of the American ideal. If this greedy scum want to punish us by stepping down (as in the fictional novel you're reading) from the jobs they have failed at, I say they'd be doing America a great service. http://www.oculture.com/2009/03/step..._thinking.html -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. |
Building stuff
On Mar 18, 11:53 am, HK wrote:
mmc wrote: HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I saw an interview where this book was held up as a justification for the pure greed displayed by the "business leaders" of the US that take huge friggin bonuses for a job poorly done. That, old friend, is something displayed prominently in corrupt communist societies. Couple this with the loss of free thought and speech as well as major corporations being so powerful that they cannot be challenged by the government and we see the destruction of the American ideal. If this greedy scum want to punish us by stepping down (as in the fictional novel you're reading) from the jobs they have failed at, I say they'd be doing America a great service. http://www.oculture.com/2009/03/step..._rand_thinking.... -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. I realize that for a man who thinks Caroline Kennedy is intelligent, some of the ideas in the book may be elusive. Perhaps is you wait it'll come out in comic book form. |
Building stuff
Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 18, 11:53 am, HK wrote: mmc wrote: HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I saw an interview where this book was held up as a justification for the pure greed displayed by the "business leaders" of the US that take huge friggin bonuses for a job poorly done. That, old friend, is something displayed prominently in corrupt communist societies. Couple this with the loss of free thought and speech as well as major corporations being so powerful that they cannot be challenged by the government and we see the destruction of the American ideal. If this greedy scum want to punish us by stepping down (as in the fictional novel you're reading) from the jobs they have failed at, I say they'd be doing America a great service. http://www.oculture.com/2009/03/step..._rand_thinking.... -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. I realize that for a man who thinks Caroline Kennedy is intelligent, some of the ideas in the book may be elusive. Perhaps is you wait it'll come out in comic book form. Please. I was laughing my way through Rand's book about 50 years ago. The Fountainhead, by the way, was a bit better. You might also be interested in some of the works of Theodore Dreiser, especially his Trilogy of Desire. I read those in the seventh grade. Much, much, much better writer than Rand, though still a bit turgid, and his protagonist is a pre-Rand Rand-like character. My mother, the Republican local committeewoman, got me to read Dreiser. Fortunately, by the time I got to high school, I realized that the GOP was heading down the path of absolute overly conservative bull****. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. |
Building stuff
Krausie wrote: "My mother, the Republican local committeewoman...."
And your father, wasn't he the largest boat dealer east of the Rockies? |
Building stuff
GC Boater wrote:
Krausie wrote: "My mother, the Republican local committeewoman...." And your father, wasn't he the largest boat dealer east of the Rockies? And these successful, intelligent, pillars of the community sent their offspring to Hillhouse High School? There's something about this story that doesn't make sense. |
Building stuff
On Mar 18, 10:11 pm, Jim wrote:
GC Boater wrote: Krausie wrote: "My mother, the Republican local committeewoman...." And your father, wasn't he the largest boat dealer east of the Rockies? And these successful, intelligent, pillars of the community sent their offspring to Hillhouse High School? There's something about this story that doesn't make sense. Using books as doorstops doesnt count as "reading" |
Building stuff
On Mar 18, 9:11*pm, Jim wrote:
GC Boater wrote: Krausie wrote: *"My mother, the Republican local committeewoman...." And your father, wasn't he the largest boat dealer east of the Rockies? And these successful, intelligent, pillars of the community sent their offspring to Hillhouse High School? There's something about this story that doesn't make sense. But Jim, the parents made up for it by sending the child to Yale. |
Building stuff
On Mar 17, 3:55*pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:56 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 3:19 pm, HK wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Mar 17, 12:50 pm, Dymphna wrote: I would like to read that book. My daughter just finished it and told me there were scenes in it I would not approve of (I am very prudish).. But it finally got her interested in politics, which is what the book is about. It is about how Socialism takes over and she could see it. She read it because of a scholarship that is being offered with an essay on the book. But in the end I think it did her some good. (Do you know how frustrating it is to be heavy into politics and have children who don't care? ggggrrrrr!) She did tell me the same thing you did about the first few hundred pages - it was hard for her to get through that part and she reads like the wind. -- Dymphna Message Origin: TRAVEL.com Am about 250 pages into it, yes, there is sex but nothing explicit, yet. *Some people might consider the main character and her lover to be "amoral" yet they are true to their own moral code. *At first, the idea that doing "good works" with no thought of personal gain is not necessarily good seems odd but Rand seems intent on hammering the theme that self interested works that happen to benefit others are best. The book will make you question "works of charity", for example, Rand would probably not approve of giving aid to Africa with nothing in return. *Experience shows she may be right. Rand is the perfect metaphorical writer for today's GOP *"I've got mine, I'm going to get yours, too, so **** you." Read Ms. Rand in the seventh grade or so, both the fountainhead and atlas shrugged. More turgid prose from a professional novelist i have never encountered. * :) -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. HK must not have understood the book. *It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I understood the books. I also understand why you Republicans love them so much...they back up your total lack of social conscience and responsibility. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. Clearly HK did not understand the books because his ideas are totally at odds with what Rand says in the book. *In fact, she specifically says that a "purposeless life is sinful" and has contempt for a character who is rich but does not do anything with his wealth but be an idle playboy. *By contrast, she has admiration for the characters who build things that enable others to prosper. How would HK define "responsibility"? *Rand would define it to do something that benefits onesself without being detrimental to others. In general, she thinks that this enables others to benefit too. Hehehe. Go build another abomination and leave the lit reviews to those who understand what they read. -- Appearing via Thunderbird on an iMac 3.06 or a Macbook Pro 2.4, running Mac OS 10.56, *or* Microsoft VISTA through BootCamp. Herr Krause. Is that the best response you can make when you have nothing else worthy to contribute? Or was that a debate tactic for your team at Drexel? |
Building stuff
"HK" wrote in message m... mmc wrote: HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I saw an interview where this book was held up as a justification for the pure greed displayed by the "business leaders" of the US that take huge friggin bonuses for a job poorly done. That, old friend, is something displayed prominently in corrupt communist societies. Couple this with the loss of free thought and speech as well as major corporations being so powerful that they cannot be challenged by the government and we see the destruction of the American ideal. If this greedy scum want to punish us by stepping down (as in the fictional novel you're reading) from the jobs they have failed at, I say they'd be doing America a great service. http://www.oculture.com/2009/03/step..._thinking.html Too funny. If I ever get to over 250k/year I'll bitch about the tax change too. I'm pretty far from it and so, I'd bet, is the majority of this group so I'll save the crocodile tears for something a little more worthy than the top 5%. |
Building stuff
mmc wrote:
"HK" wrote in message m... mmc wrote: HK must not have understood the book. It is really about "If I am able to get mine, you will be able to get yours too", however, "It is not my concern if you do not get yours if you are incompetent". I saw an interview where this book was held up as a justification for the pure greed displayed by the "business leaders" of the US that take huge friggin bonuses for a job poorly done. That, old friend, is something displayed prominently in corrupt communist societies. Couple this with the loss of free thought and speech as well as major corporations being so powerful that they cannot be challenged by the government and we see the destruction of the American ideal. If this greedy scum want to punish us by stepping down (as in the fictional novel you're reading) from the jobs they have failed at, I say they'd be doing America a great service. http://www.oculture.com/2009/03/step..._thinking.html Too funny. If I ever get to over 250k/year I'll bitch about the tax change too. I'm pretty far from it and so, I'd bet, is the majority of this group so I'll save the crocodile tears for something a little more worthy than the top 5%. No CEO is worth more than a reasonable multiple of the average salaried worker at any company. A reasonable multiple is not 100 or 500 times. I love it that the House has passed a confiscatory tax on the damned retention and other bonuses the wall street/insurance/banking crooks are paying themselves for failure. Out of our tax money. **** 'em. -- The morality police - the bloviating gas bags of the religious right - have fallen lower than the stock market. It has truly been an amazing (and amusing) thing to watch these so-called "spokesmen of Christ" defending their morally indefensible positions these days. Finally - they're going away. It seems an answer to a prayer. Thank you, Lord. |
Building stuff
"HK" wrote in message m... I love it that the House has passed a confiscatory tax on the damned retention and other bonuses the wall street/insurance/banking crooks are paying themselves for failure. Out of our tax money. **** 'em. I don't agree with the payment of the bonuses, but I am afraid the House action could easily be overturned in a Court. What they are trying to do is illegal in the eyes of many legal experts. What went wrong was the conditions of the bailout deal to begin with. Congress is as much to blame, if not more so, for stupidly rushing this deal without thinking it though. Worse, maybe they did. Eisboch |
Building stuff
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message m... I love it that the House has passed a confiscatory tax on the damned retention and other bonuses the wall street/insurance/banking crooks are paying themselves for failure. Out of our tax money. **** 'em. I don't agree with the payment of the bonuses, but I am afraid the House action could easily be overturned in a Court. What they are trying to do is illegal in the eyes of many legal experts. What went wrong was the conditions of the bailout deal to begin with. Congress is as much to blame, if not more so, for stupidly rushing this deal without thinking it though. Worse, maybe they did. Eisboch Also turns out that some of the companies that received bailout funds lied about their fed income taxes being paid. Now that, if true, will be an offense worth slammer time. Hope they get it. -- The morality police - the bloviating gas bags of the religious right - have fallen lower than the stock market. It has truly been an amazing (and amusing) thing to watch these so-called "spokesmen of Christ" defending their morally indefensible positions these days. Finally - they're going away. It seems an answer to a prayer. Thank you, Lord. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com