It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ayn Rand's Influence on the 21st Century

page: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

I find it to be more appropriate to listen to her public lectures, and what she says in her non-fiction "philosophical" books and "manifestos."

Interpreting literature is an art form all unto itself, and not a thing that can be absolutely dissected as to her 'message.'
For example:
The Bible is "interpreted" to mean LOTS of different things by different people.

What Rand actually said while addressing an audience about her PHILOSOPHY is more pertinent (I think) than what she said or how she characterized the fictional people in her novels.
Last summer I read Dr Zhivago all the way through. It taught me a lot about the Bolshevik revolution.
But it wasn't "real life." It was literature.


edit on 5/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


People can rationalized the WIC all they want, but the current state of the union tells the real story.

Too many 'mouths to feed' not enough soup to go around, and the people are screaming they want steak.

And WHY is that the case?

Because the CEO darlings of yours decided to off-shore and AVOID paying their fair share - as well as to AVOID providing a living wage to Americans. THAT is why there's not "enough soup" to go around.

Bring the jobs back, provide a decent, liveable wage, and we'd be much better off.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

No, I'm not accepting a right-wing propaganda site's "tables and numbers".

I want .org or .gov sources, if you please.
I provided some.
Can you do that?

I do understand there is a difference in mandatory vs discretionary.....however, it is CLEAR that the "discretionary" spending is MOSTLY focused on Mliitary....NOT infrastructure, poverty, education, etc.



oh, okay....

from the White House pages



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Clicked it, scanned it, read it.

I see NOTHING wrong with those policies.

The President's 2016 Budget is designed to bring middle class economics into the 21st Century. This Budget shows what we can do if we invest in America's future and commit to an economy that rewards hard work, generates rising incomes, and allows everyone to share in the prosperity of a growing America.

Gasp!! HOrror of horrors!!
(Not.)


It lays out a strategy to strengthen our middle class and help America's hard-working families get ahead in a time of relentless economic and technological change. And it makes the critical investments needed to accelerate and sustain economic growth in the long run, including in research, education, training, and infrastructure.

These proposals will help working families feel more secure with paychecks that go further, help American workers upgrade their skills so they can compete for higher-paying jobs, and help create the conditions for our businesses to keep generating good new jobs for our workers to fill, while also fulfilling our most basic responsibility to keep Americans safe.
Generating good new jobs WHILE ALSO fulfilling our most basic responsibility to keep Americans safe?
OH NOEZ! (not) - what is wrong with this, please?


We will make these investments, and end the harmful spending cuts known as sequestration, by cutting inefficient spending and reforming our broken tax code to make sure everyone pays their fair share. We can do all this while also putting our Nation on a more sustainable fiscal path. The Budget achieves about $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction, primarily from reforms to health programs, our tax code, and immigration.



GAH! NO! (not) /sarcasm


What is your problem with them???

Seriously, what is WRONG with those policies?
They don't do enough for the uber-rich and the military?

Is that what you think?

It's rather hard to reconcile that you, an Obama hater and mocker, would present this as an argument in defense of what you said and your position.......


edit on 5/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I need to put a thread together on why no policy of any type will work for the middle class until the dollar is relinked to gold or a basket of commodities. The downward spiral of real earnings and wealth accumulation began when the United States moved off of the gold standard.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


I need to put a thread together on why no policy of any type will work for the middle class until the dollar is relinked to gold or a basket of commodities. The downward spiral of real earnings and wealth accumulation began when the United States moved off of the gold standard.

Completely in agreement with you there.

I've been buying up silver and sorting out the gold in our house.

The Fiat system is insupportable, unsustainable, and asinine.
In my opinion.

It is now "imaginary" wealth generated by a computer algorithm and is little more than a "national global lottery" that only the players can participate in.

The rest of us are hosed.

edit on 5/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




Because the CEO darlings of yours decided to off-shore and AVOID paying their fair share - as well as to AVOID providing a living wage to Americans. THAT is why there's not "enough soup" to go around.


LOL too funny.

The evil corporations!

Now where my free corportate products, and a job !




Bring the jobs back, provide a decent, liveable wage, and we'd be much better off.


Last 80 years not enough proof of the EPIC failure Rand critics have wrought ?

More people out of work, living on government assistance, with more programs than the ENTIRE countries history.

To the tune of 18 trillion dollars that ALL ends up in the evil corporations pockets.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




Those were five years ago, genius. And one of them is a 10-YEAR span. Irrelevant.


I guess someone missed the usdebtclock link that is CURRENT spending.

Was good enough to bash GW over the head with 8 years, but now some people want to ignore it.




Laugh all you want. You'd still be wrong.


I will, and not even close to being wrong.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


LOL too funny.

The evil corporations!

Now where my free corportate products, and a job !


What?


Last 80 years not enough proof of the EPIC failure Rand critics have wrought ?

Erm, she was still alive into the 1980s. Born in 1905. Didn't start "writing" until decades later.


More people out of work, living on government assistance, with more programs than the ENTIRE countries history.

Right! Because of off-shoring, tax loopholes, wealth-hoarding, lobbying, the Citizens United "corps are people" insanity, killing unions.....
THAT is why.

Oh (edit to add) and also the expendtures on the Military! And all the foreign aid!!!! Israel "demands" $45 billion from the US!!!???????? SO?
And we pay it - why? Because it helps our citizens????

No. Because it adds to the American "super-power" image and the American (biggest, baddest thug) ability to bribe other countries into "cooperating" with them!! (edit: it's not a question...it's a statement. I had a ? after this statement before)
I'm afraid I don't agree that it's in the "National Interest" to be involved in wars or arbitrating deals between countries that want to kill each other. The National Interest should be making sure there are no STARVING children and adults, no HOMELESS children and adults, no

And also - but, you defend those corporations for removing decent-paying jobs from our shores? You deny that off-shoring is a problem? You think that tax evasion and wealth-hoarding by those corporations is just fine?

Again, please check your gas mask.

I don't get you, neo, and after 4+ years of reading your posts and threads, I guess I never will.

edit on 5/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Fair enough, in that I'll go have a listen to her lectures, perhaps. Cause, a lot of people interpret a lot, differently. End of it there.

You used in your opening OP that Rand was against religion, as well. I see now that it may just have been another attempt to derail policy of smaller government (as in, governement staying out of how children should be taught and our bedrooms, and not legislate morality, in general), something she spoke about, or some other policy, by attacking her "character," known as an ad hominem attack. For this statement of yours for which you used a comparison as the interpretation of the Bible, labeling it as "literature,"


Interpreting literature is an art form all unto itself, and not a thing that can be absolutely dissected as to her 'message.'
For example:
The Bible is "interpreted" to mean LOTS of different things by different people.

would make you an enemy of many religious people who view the Bible as the actual word of God, not "literature."
I'm not seeking to make literature into a dirty word, here, nor art…when I say that interpreting literature isn't, perhaps, not so much an art form as you may think. See how that works, what I did there? I made sure that little spun could be put on my words because someone may have come along and said, you're being negative about literature, or about art, in general. My assertions about what Rand meant by what was written in those novels wouldn't prove so far from the average college level interpretation, and it is important in deciphering what she supposedly said or lectured, as well.

The point is, first, that people are reported to say a lot of things, doesn't mean they did or that they were accurately quoted; and second, interpreting what is written about or told of second hand that someone said, even if accurate, or even what they outright really said, is an art form, as well.

Given that, surely we can agree that interpretation is key, end of story, whether we're talking about literature, literal art forms, fact, or anything said out loud or written. I think her literature is probably the most important part of her legacy. After all, if she hadn't written it, no one would have had her lecturing in the first place. Also, encapsulated ideas given labels with language like "No Child Left Behind," (which I use here because it turned out to mean in outcomes of legislation something entirely different than the legislator sold it as) or any hashtag or tagline, without being informed by further writing, such as the "literature" of the actual bill, don't mean much, without further information. We live in times where any and every spoken word is literally spun, the interpretation of which is totally up to anyone, at any given time.
tetra

ETA: I edited this several times, so I hope you re-read, should you choose to reply.

edit on 29-5-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Burd, we've been down this road before and you keep going there. Choice. You are pissed off because you don't choose to pay taxes, so you feel violated. It's personally offensive to you.

YET when you're driving down the public streets, knowing you can dial 911 should something awful happen, and enjoying the society and conveniences that surround you, suddenly that offense doesn't seem to exist at all. I mean you're still pissed that you got taxed - but you expect the benefits of that taxation to exist and would be as lost as the rest of us without the infrastructure we enjoy.

Then you continuously belittle others for being selfish? Seems to me like you might be projecting.



1. I've said before that I have no major gripes with public services (aside from the MASSIVE conflict of interest that exists around public worker unions.) Those are things that are beneficial and used by everyone.

2. I don't belittle people for being selfish. I have no problem with the natural reaction of protecting what you have and keeping it for yourself. My issue is with greed. I do not consider keeping what you have and what you've earned to be greed. Greed is going "gimme gimme!" at everyone you see with more than you. Greed is advocating redistribution of money away from someone who earned it and towards people who didn't. Greed is saying "I'm owed because I exist"



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50


You used in your opening OP that Rand was against religion, as well.


Okay...wait. Wait.

*reads more carefully* Yes, I did. She was. When I made the thread, after starting that course, I was curious as to why right-wing and right-leaning people lauded her. Kind of like how some people laud Noam Chomsky.

Well, I've been reading some Chomsky (see, because I had heard of him, also and didn't know much about it.) So now, I decided to read some Raynd (because I had heard of her and didn't know much about her).


I see now that it may just have been another attempt to derail policy of smaller government (as in, governement staying out of how children should be taught and our bedrooms, and not legislate morality, in general)


on whose part?

something she spoke about, or some other policy, by attacking her "character," known as an ad hominem attack. For this statement of yours for which you used a comparison as the interpretation of the Bible, labeling it as "literature."
Who made an ad hom attack?


would make you an enemy of many religious people who view the Bible as the actual word of God, not "literature."
Well aware of that and have already been justly convicted. It's true.

Notwithstanding the condemnation of my soul or person by literalists and fundamentalists: The Bible IS literature.


Yes, I presented Ayn Rand's "character", and I don't "approve that message".......but not approving is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is evaluation of philosophy.

The Bible is not a non-fiction volume.
I'm sorry - but - in reality according to modern civilization, knowledge, and sophistication, The Bible is at its best "literature" and at its worst "propaganda and psyops."


That is what literature is.

We could just as easily have decided that Shakespeare (whoever he really was, and in case you didn't know, lots of people think he is also a 'myth' and are fighting the people who say he was a unique, true person) is God. Imagine! It could easily be. Was Shakespeare an angel who dictated to a guy in a pub, or a lord in a mansion? Or were his plays and poetry just forgeries - like a pseudonym used by someone or some committee/team of writers - was there was not actual "William Shakespeare"? Or was there???


The Bible vs The Complete Works of Shakespeare..... to head.
I know who I would vote for.




edit on 5/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
and this is exactly how much a word, a single word, can be spun, by interpretation.

Greed's simplest definition is this: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.

You've listed here, all kinds of caveats, per your particular politics and beliefs that aren't automatically nor necessarily thought of to define greed.

Just shows how above what I was saying is true: interpreting what anyone says and what they really mean by it, has become an art form.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50


Just shows how above what I was saying is true: interpreting what anyone says and what they really mean by it, has become an art form.


Wait-------------

I thought that's what I said? About the Bible being literature - and interpreting literature is an art form.
That's what I said. I'm sure of it.


edit on 5/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The policies are not the issue.

You were asking for numbers confirmations.

Those numbers are in the tables (excel format however, not readable by everybody).

Military spending is not 50% of total spending as the "discretionary" numbers suggest.

And, "welfare" spending is high.

Good deflection just the same.




posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
I'm going to disregard your reply to me, because from reading some of what you excerpted, I can tell by the punctuation it was before I'd finished editing my post, and the one you replied to doesn't mean the same as when it looked when you read it. Unfortunately, I hit the post button too quick before I'd fully expressed what I was saying.

Most of your commentary is to the "first draft," which didn't make clear at all what I was trying to say.
Perhaps re-read and comment? or, I'll give you the chance to edit your response, if you wish, as I edited mine, before I answer that. Because as my post now reads, I thinks it clear, by whom, I mean, for instance, and why I said that.
And the result in showing how easy it is to spin the interpretation on any word, idea, stated or written sentence.

edit on 29-5-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50


I'm going to disregard your post, because from reading some of what you excerpted, I can tell by the punctuation it was before I'd finished editing my post. Unfortunately, I hit the post button too quick before I'd fully expressed what I was saying.

AH!!! And, oddly enough, I DID read your edits, and saw where you asked me to please reread....

and then I went back and edited my response.

But - I'll check again.
Yes, you can disregard my post.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

wutever.
*eyeroll*
That's all you got? okay, thanks for participating.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: tetra50


Just shows how above what I was saying is true: interpreting what anyone says and what they really mean by it, has become an art form.


Wait-------------

I thought that's what I said? About the Bible being literature - and interpreting literature is an art form.
That's what I said. I'm sure of it.



And I said much more, agreeing with that….
I am attempting to take nothing from you.
Please see my last response to your last response, and see that I edited my post, but you unfortunately replied to my unedited post.
Then, I think, it will make sense to you what I replied to burdman300tt6, in which, anyway, I said the following:


and this is exactly how much a word, a single word, can be spun, by interpretation.



You said that literature was open to interpretation, in short. I agreed. And went on further to say that anything is open to interpretation, even what is thought of as fact, including what Rand is quoted to say in lectures.
tetra



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

edit on 29-5-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join