Ayn Rand The Whore of Babylon - Mitt Romney The False Prophet - Paul Ryan The Antichrist?

reply to post by Red Cloak


OP, I feel very offended, Ive been a Mormon since I can remember. I dont know if you have ever attended church service at an LDS church, or even studied about it, if not you should keep your mouth shut. Ive gone to just about every church there is, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (mormon church) is as christian as it gets. Its the only one ive ever felt right in.
This is coming from a VERY open-minded person, I attend the LDS church every sunday and also practice Rastafarianism, but i apply my mormon beliefs to it. I dont smoke.

reply to post by NeutralGuard


what happens in a few years, when computers and robots exponentially continue to take over more and more jobs,, not just factory pushing button jobs,, but white collar banking pushing button jobs?

Originally posted by Rastafari
reply to post by Red Cloak

 

OP, I feel very offended, Ive been a Mormon since I can remember. I dont know if you have ever attended church service at an LDS church, or even studied about it, if not you should keep your mouth shut. Ive gone to just about every church there is, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (mormon church) is as christian as it gets. Its the only one ive ever felt right in.
This is coming from a VERY open-minded person, I attend the LDS church every sunday and also practice Rastafarianism, but i apply my mormon beliefs to it. I dont smoke.

edit on 27-8-2012 by Rastafari because: (no reason given)

sure your not talking about the church of '___'?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by NeutralGuard

 

what happens in a few years, when computers and robots exponentially continue to take over more and more jobs,, not just factory pushing button jobs,, but white collar banking pushing button jobs?

We'll cross that bridge when we get there. But it's funny, because in some posts, you're pushing for "progress". In others, you want to hold society back. Interesting.

reply to post by ImaFungi


What? Its written all over my comment

Originally posted by NeutralGuard

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by NeutralGuard

 

what happens in a few years, when computers and robots exponentially continue to take over more and more jobs,, not just factory pushing button jobs,, but white collar banking pushing button jobs?

But it's funny, because in some posts, you're pushing for "progress". In others, you want to hold society back. Interesting.

what do you mean?

reply to post by Red Cloak

What utter sewage this OP has spread. The fact that you are given space to vomit forth your stupidity has nothing to do with you but our need to allow all people to have their chance to say their piece. Well Mister, you have had your chance and I truly hope you have the opportunity to put your neck on the line for what you believe.

I'm amazed this thread has gotten any traction. wasn't long ago when Ayn Rand was spoken of on ATS with reverence, now this. The bitterness of the Paul camp is palpable.

Edited because screw this topic. It's gone to hell.

reply to post by redhorse

Ayn Rand offends liberal sensitivities that much?
A russian shopkeepers daughter and immigrant; who saw firsthand the criminality of the collective state.AND correctly predicted the outcome of such thinking. Really ticks you guys off huh(??)


"Atlas shrugged" is a modern prophecy; Evidenced by its playing out as we watch today here in the u.s..
Ayn was brilliant.

reply to post by NeutralGuard

NeutralGuard "+10points" you said it better than I ever could have.I believe Rand said:
"I live for no man and I ask no man to live for me".

For "altruism" has no limit". It preaches" If someone else is hungry you should not eat so as not to take food from their mouths. and then you die. But you "meant well". Impractical; typical liberal thinking.

"Randians" Stand tall... The evidence of her prophetic genius is all around us.

She got called out for what she was and what she wrote a long time ago.

Big Sister Is Watching You
From the Dec. 28, 1957, issue of NR.
By Whittaker Chambers

www.nationalreview.com...

One Big Brother is, of course, a socializing elite (as we know, several cut-rate brands are on the shelves). Miss Rand, as the enemy of any socializing force, calls in a Big Brother of her own contriving to do battle with the other. In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls “productive achievement” man’s “noblest activity,” she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau. She might object that she means much, much more; and we can freely entertain her objections. But, in sum, that is just what she means. For that is what, in reality, it works out to. And in reality, too, by contrast with fiction, this can only head into a dictatorship, however benign, living and acting beyond good and evil, a law unto itself (as Miss Rand believes it should be), and feeling any restraint on itself as, in practice, criminal, and, in morals, vicious — as Miss Rand clearly feels it to be. Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship. I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship. Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitler’s National Socialism and Stalin’s brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left. The question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who can run it more efficiently? Something of this implication is fixed in the book’s dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber — go!” The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture — that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.

That guys history is interesting. A spy or double spy? Who called out a Russian woman writing BS fantasies. And her real history she loved the over throw of Russia and she loved the unions forming in Russia and said it was a great time in Russian history as the peoples voices were begining to be heard. But then the Russians started throwing out the elite who were over everything and her and her family became scared and left Russia. Then she blamed the unions for kicking her family out.

You ever stop and wonder if it is those of us who call ourselves true Christians who got it wrong? I'm not a Mormon but had I been born into a family of Mormons, odds are I'd have been pedaling around in black slacks and a white shirt in high school.

I'd have probably gone through my weed phase and also walked away during college. No telling if I'd have come back to that religion but my point is you may be judging a little harshly? What if you've got it all wrong and have to apologize? What with the "whore" this and "satanic" that. Just saying.

Though not a conservative nor a follower of Ayn Rand's (nor anybodies) philosophies, I admire some of her work. It sickens me when people use her as both a prophet or a witch to promote their own political ideologies—most without having read any of her books. It reminds me of the way Socrates was condemned to death for corrupting the youth. She's a philosopher, nothing more. All anyone seems to do is resort to ad hominem attacks against her, a dead woman. If you attack the philosopher but not the ideas, you are not fit for philosophy.

Only hypocritical political fanatics and moral crusaders would use her as an idol or an effigy.

in my twisted interpretation of the present politics going on, with the madness in voter id, and voter purge etc. I have kind of thought Romney/Paul would most definitely win, if only because its a rigged gig at this point, and the amount of fraud these guys can get away with without anyone noticing when it comes to "counting" the votes. If something were to happen to then Prez Romney that left him, I dunno.. Dead, and Paul had to step in, the nature of it would likely benefit Paul as he would have the backing of America as we would unite and unite behind him like never before..

The last time the US lost a president we didnt have the saturation of media that we currently have.. If we lost a Prez, we would see an enormously powerful political figure emerge out of the ashes that the US has never seen.. That goes for both sides.. Setting the stage for a Anti Christ like figure. This makes sense to me, Great job OP

Mitt cannot be the anti-christ because no one likes him...
The anti christ is supposed to be loved by all

reply to post by ImaFungi


What happens when robots and computers do the white collar jobs, too?

Well, in some philosophies when the jobs that sustain us are all done by automation, then we will exist in a techno-utopia where spending our time alive is spent on what we love, or even what we have a passing interest in, rather than jobs we must do to simply survive.

Our state as humans so far is one that is hardly free, even ignoring restrictive laws about one's personal behavior in private. We are slaves to our material needs. Certain lucky individuals could enjoy immense freedom throughout history, but always at the expense of others less fortunate.

Just a transient thought bought with time given me by some poor slobs, probably in Asia, who might even had had an idea of how to make folks immortal, or created a beautiful work of art, if they'd not had to slave to keep Americans fat and lazy... but we'll never know.

reply to post by Baddogma


"given me by some poor slobs, probably in Asia, who might even had had an idea of how to make folks immortal, or created a beautiful work of art, if they'd not had to slave to keep Americans fat and lazy."

Its their fault,, everyone knows everyone has equal opportunity,, if they dont like it why dont they just move? maybe if they werent so lazy and did some hard work and went to college they can move up in society,,, shame on them,

reply to post by ImaFungi


"Everyone knows everyone has equal opportunity..." Really?

Subsistence level life / extreme poverty doesn't offer a whole lot of opportunities.

I suppose they could find the time to climb the corporate ladder in the swarming slums where they live between bouts of dizziness from hunger/sickness and they're just too lazy after working their 16 hours a day.

Perhaps if they'd just save more of the money that's left after feeding and sheltering themselves and loved ones (if lucky) for their higher education... which they'd be able to afford in what... two centuries?

But barring place of birth and genetic and environmental variables and what sex and class you are, I suppose everyone does have "equal opportunity..." remembering that some folks are more equal than others.