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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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"?

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?

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.

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.

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.