- This topic has 605 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 19, 2011 at 1:24 PM #688914April 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM #687778
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, I’m disappointed. I would have expected someone with your savoir faire to have said it in French…So true. But I wouldn’t count him out completely just yet. For all we know he may simply be taking time off for a sabbatical at the University of Virginia, immersing himself in their immense Thomas Jefferson collection (it’s no secret that he’s an esteemed Jeffersonian scholar.)
Or there’s the possibility that he’ll follow Sarah Palin to the Council on Foreign Relations for a year-long fellowship. And did I hear something on Twitter about a Rhodes scholarship?
As for my opinion on what the future holds for him, there’s no doubt in my mind……
Glenn Beck is John Galt.[/quote]
Eaves: Being German on both sides of the family, I’m not allowed to speak French. Not unless I want members of my family taking over my house, expropriating all my stuff and holding victory parades in my backyard.
I was kinda seeing Beck going Old School, as in classical learning. You know: Tacitus, Seneca and Ovid.
Speaking of Ovid and Glenn Beck (talk about a weird juxtaposition): Here’s a little Ovid quote that seems apropos, “acta deos nunquam mortalia fallunt”.
April 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM #687838Participant[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, I’m disappointed. I would have expected someone with your savoir faire to have said it in French…So true. But I wouldn’t count him out completely just yet. For all we know he may simply be taking time off for a sabbatical at the University of Virginia, immersing himself in their immense Thomas Jefferson collection (it’s no secret that he’s an esteemed Jeffersonian scholar.)
Or there’s the possibility that he’ll follow Sarah Palin to the Council on Foreign Relations for a year-long fellowship. And did I hear something on Twitter about a Rhodes scholarship?
As for my opinion on what the future holds for him, there’s no doubt in my mind……
Glenn Beck is John Galt.[/quote]
Eaves: Being German on both sides of the family, I’m not allowed to speak French. Not unless I want members of my family taking over my house, expropriating all my stuff and holding victory parades in my backyard.
I was kinda seeing Beck going Old School, as in classical learning. You know: Tacitus, Seneca and Ovid.
Speaking of Ovid and Glenn Beck (talk about a weird juxtaposition): Here’s a little Ovid quote that seems apropos, “acta deos nunquam mortalia fallunt”.
April 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM #688455Participant[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, I’m disappointed. I would have expected someone with your savoir faire to have said it in French…So true. But I wouldn’t count him out completely just yet. For all we know he may simply be taking time off for a sabbatical at the University of Virginia, immersing himself in their immense Thomas Jefferson collection (it’s no secret that he’s an esteemed Jeffersonian scholar.)
Or there’s the possibility that he’ll follow Sarah Palin to the Council on Foreign Relations for a year-long fellowship. And did I hear something on Twitter about a Rhodes scholarship?
As for my opinion on what the future holds for him, there’s no doubt in my mind……
Glenn Beck is John Galt.[/quote]
Eaves: Being German on both sides of the family, I’m not allowed to speak French. Not unless I want members of my family taking over my house, expropriating all my stuff and holding victory parades in my backyard.
I was kinda seeing Beck going Old School, as in classical learning. You know: Tacitus, Seneca and Ovid.
Speaking of Ovid and Glenn Beck (talk about a weird juxtaposition): Here’s a little Ovid quote that seems apropos, “acta deos nunquam mortalia fallunt”.
April 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM #688596Participant[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, I’m disappointed. I would have expected someone with your savoir faire to have said it in French…So true. But I wouldn’t count him out completely just yet. For all we know he may simply be taking time off for a sabbatical at the University of Virginia, immersing himself in their immense Thomas Jefferson collection (it’s no secret that he’s an esteemed Jeffersonian scholar.)
Or there’s the possibility that he’ll follow Sarah Palin to the Council on Foreign Relations for a year-long fellowship. And did I hear something on Twitter about a Rhodes scholarship?
As for my opinion on what the future holds for him, there’s no doubt in my mind……
Glenn Beck is John Galt.[/quote]
Eaves: Being German on both sides of the family, I’m not allowed to speak French. Not unless I want members of my family taking over my house, expropriating all my stuff and holding victory parades in my backyard.
I was kinda seeing Beck going Old School, as in classical learning. You know: Tacitus, Seneca and Ovid.
Speaking of Ovid and Glenn Beck (talk about a weird juxtaposition): Here’s a little Ovid quote that seems apropos, “acta deos nunquam mortalia fallunt”.
April 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM #688948Participant[quote=eavesdropper]
Allan, I’m disappointed. I would have expected someone with your savoir faire to have said it in French…So true. But I wouldn’t count him out completely just yet. For all we know he may simply be taking time off for a sabbatical at the University of Virginia, immersing himself in their immense Thomas Jefferson collection (it’s no secret that he’s an esteemed Jeffersonian scholar.)
Or there’s the possibility that he’ll follow Sarah Palin to the Council on Foreign Relations for a year-long fellowship. And did I hear something on Twitter about a Rhodes scholarship?
As for my opinion on what the future holds for him, there’s no doubt in my mind……
Glenn Beck is John Galt.[/quote]
Eaves: Being German on both sides of the family, I’m not allowed to speak French. Not unless I want members of my family taking over my house, expropriating all my stuff and holding victory parades in my backyard.
I was kinda seeing Beck going Old School, as in classical learning. You know: Tacitus, Seneca and Ovid.
Speaking of Ovid and Glenn Beck (talk about a weird juxtaposition): Here’s a little Ovid quote that seems apropos, “acta deos nunquam mortalia fallunt”.
April 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM #688573briansd1
GuestHas anyone seen the movie yet?
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/?gclid=COCR68_3sKgCFQI3gwodRQg5Hw
The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald Reagan’s faith in the people instead of elites. Rand regarded the people as “looters” and “parasites.” She was a strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of a mythical class of capitalist supermen. Rand, in fact, pronounced herself “profoundly opposed” to Reagan’s presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological standards.
Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she said, is “the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. . . . It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.” Yet some conservatives marked Holy Week by attending and embracing “Atlas Shrugged.”
Reaction to Rand draws a line in political theory. Some believe with Rand that all government is coercion and theft — the tearing-down of the strong for the benefit of the undeserving. Others believe that government has a limited but noble role in helping the most vulnerable in society — not motivated by egalitarianism, which is destructive, but by compassion, which is human. And some root this duty in God’s particular concern for the vulnerable and undeserving, which eventually includes us all. This is the message of Easter, and it is inconsistent with the gospel of Rand.
April 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM #688635GuestHas anyone seen the movie yet?
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/?gclid=COCR68_3sKgCFQI3gwodRQg5Hw
The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald Reagan’s faith in the people instead of elites. Rand regarded the people as “looters” and “parasites.” She was a strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of a mythical class of capitalist supermen. Rand, in fact, pronounced herself “profoundly opposed” to Reagan’s presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological standards.
Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she said, is “the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. . . . It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.” Yet some conservatives marked Holy Week by attending and embracing “Atlas Shrugged.”
Reaction to Rand draws a line in political theory. Some believe with Rand that all government is coercion and theft — the tearing-down of the strong for the benefit of the undeserving. Others believe that government has a limited but noble role in helping the most vulnerable in society — not motivated by egalitarianism, which is destructive, but by compassion, which is human. And some root this duty in God’s particular concern for the vulnerable and undeserving, which eventually includes us all. This is the message of Easter, and it is inconsistent with the gospel of Rand.
April 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM #689252GuestHas anyone seen the movie yet?
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/?gclid=COCR68_3sKgCFQI3gwodRQg5Hw
The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald Reagan’s faith in the people instead of elites. Rand regarded the people as “looters” and “parasites.” She was a strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of a mythical class of capitalist supermen. Rand, in fact, pronounced herself “profoundly opposed” to Reagan’s presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological standards.
Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she said, is “the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. . . . It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.” Yet some conservatives marked Holy Week by attending and embracing “Atlas Shrugged.”
Reaction to Rand draws a line in political theory. Some believe with Rand that all government is coercion and theft — the tearing-down of the strong for the benefit of the undeserving. Others believe that government has a limited but noble role in helping the most vulnerable in society — not motivated by egalitarianism, which is destructive, but by compassion, which is human. And some root this duty in God’s particular concern for the vulnerable and undeserving, which eventually includes us all. This is the message of Easter, and it is inconsistent with the gospel of Rand.
April 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM #689395GuestHas anyone seen the movie yet?
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/?gclid=COCR68_3sKgCFQI3gwodRQg5Hw
The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald Reagan’s faith in the people instead of elites. Rand regarded the people as “looters” and “parasites.” She was a strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of a mythical class of capitalist supermen. Rand, in fact, pronounced herself “profoundly opposed” to Reagan’s presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological standards.
Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she said, is “the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. . . . It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.” Yet some conservatives marked Holy Week by attending and embracing “Atlas Shrugged.”
Reaction to Rand draws a line in political theory. Some believe with Rand that all government is coercion and theft — the tearing-down of the strong for the benefit of the undeserving. Others believe that government has a limited but noble role in helping the most vulnerable in society — not motivated by egalitarianism, which is destructive, but by compassion, which is human. And some root this duty in God’s particular concern for the vulnerable and undeserving, which eventually includes us all. This is the message of Easter, and it is inconsistent with the gospel of Rand.
April 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM #689746GuestHas anyone seen the movie yet?
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/?gclid=COCR68_3sKgCFQI3gwodRQg5Hw
The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald Reagan’s faith in the people instead of elites. Rand regarded the people as “looters” and “parasites.” She was a strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of a mythical class of capitalist supermen. Rand, in fact, pronounced herself “profoundly opposed” to Reagan’s presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological standards.
Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she said, is “the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. . . . It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.” Yet some conservatives marked Holy Week by attending and embracing “Atlas Shrugged.”
Reaction to Rand draws a line in political theory. Some believe with Rand that all government is coercion and theft — the tearing-down of the strong for the benefit of the undeserving. Others believe that government has a limited but noble role in helping the most vulnerable in society — not motivated by egalitarianism, which is destructive, but by compassion, which is human. And some root this duty in God’s particular concern for the vulnerable and undeserving, which eventually includes us all. This is the message of Easter, and it is inconsistent with the gospel of Rand.
April 23, 2011 at 1:10 AM #688702sd_matt
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]
I’m not pessimistic about the world. It’s this 18th century social organization devised by pre-science enlightenment philosophers and based on abstractions that we are running that I am pessimistic about. It’s past its shelf-life and starting to stink.Economics, is essentially politics wrapped in complex math to give it the veneer of scientific legitimacy. [/quote]
Arraya, I think that you’re far ahead our times.
The truth is that money makes the world go ’round. Money motivates people. Without it economic activity would slow down to a halt. And that would not be good for our standard of living.
As you suggested before, will some technology replace money? Not for a long time, IMHO.
I’ve said that, maybe one day, we’ll achieve a Star Trek like world where we work looking forward the the permission to enjoy the hollow deck.[/quote]
Since we’re threadjackin here may recommend the book “The Singularity is Near” by Raymond Kurzweil. How do I sum it up..hmmm…I guess it predicts how people will merge with technology and explores the good and bad. Think of it as a legit version of Art Bell episode.
I always liked Star Trek for the same reason that I liked the original Law and Order. They both made you think but in different ways. The technology of Star Trek is ridiculous in some ways.
The biggies are what happens when machines become more intelligent than people and what happens when people augment their own intelligence with technology. To take the second part and transition into politics. I am left wondering whom will be allowed by the PTB to augment themselves, can that be even controlled, ect ect. A big can of worms.
April 23, 2011 at 1:10 AM #688766Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]
I’m not pessimistic about the world. It’s this 18th century social organization devised by pre-science enlightenment philosophers and based on abstractions that we are running that I am pessimistic about. It’s past its shelf-life and starting to stink.Economics, is essentially politics wrapped in complex math to give it the veneer of scientific legitimacy. [/quote]
Arraya, I think that you’re far ahead our times.
The truth is that money makes the world go ’round. Money motivates people. Without it economic activity would slow down to a halt. And that would not be good for our standard of living.
As you suggested before, will some technology replace money? Not for a long time, IMHO.
I’ve said that, maybe one day, we’ll achieve a Star Trek like world where we work looking forward the the permission to enjoy the hollow deck.[/quote]
Since we’re threadjackin here may recommend the book “The Singularity is Near” by Raymond Kurzweil. How do I sum it up..hmmm…I guess it predicts how people will merge with technology and explores the good and bad. Think of it as a legit version of Art Bell episode.
I always liked Star Trek for the same reason that I liked the original Law and Order. They both made you think but in different ways. The technology of Star Trek is ridiculous in some ways.
The biggies are what happens when machines become more intelligent than people and what happens when people augment their own intelligence with technology. To take the second part and transition into politics. I am left wondering whom will be allowed by the PTB to augment themselves, can that be even controlled, ect ect. A big can of worms.
April 23, 2011 at 1:10 AM #689383Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]
I’m not pessimistic about the world. It’s this 18th century social organization devised by pre-science enlightenment philosophers and based on abstractions that we are running that I am pessimistic about. It’s past its shelf-life and starting to stink.Economics, is essentially politics wrapped in complex math to give it the veneer of scientific legitimacy. [/quote]
Arraya, I think that you’re far ahead our times.
The truth is that money makes the world go ’round. Money motivates people. Without it economic activity would slow down to a halt. And that would not be good for our standard of living.
As you suggested before, will some technology replace money? Not for a long time, IMHO.
I’ve said that, maybe one day, we’ll achieve a Star Trek like world where we work looking forward the the permission to enjoy the hollow deck.[/quote]
Since we’re threadjackin here may recommend the book “The Singularity is Near” by Raymond Kurzweil. How do I sum it up..hmmm…I guess it predicts how people will merge with technology and explores the good and bad. Think of it as a legit version of Art Bell episode.
I always liked Star Trek for the same reason that I liked the original Law and Order. They both made you think but in different ways. The technology of Star Trek is ridiculous in some ways.
The biggies are what happens when machines become more intelligent than people and what happens when people augment their own intelligence with technology. To take the second part and transition into politics. I am left wondering whom will be allowed by the PTB to augment themselves, can that be even controlled, ect ect. A big can of worms.
April 23, 2011 at 1:10 AM #689525Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]
I’m not pessimistic about the world. It’s this 18th century social organization devised by pre-science enlightenment philosophers and based on abstractions that we are running that I am pessimistic about. It’s past its shelf-life and starting to stink.Economics, is essentially politics wrapped in complex math to give it the veneer of scientific legitimacy. [/quote]
Arraya, I think that you’re far ahead our times.
The truth is that money makes the world go ’round. Money motivates people. Without it economic activity would slow down to a halt. And that would not be good for our standard of living.
As you suggested before, will some technology replace money? Not for a long time, IMHO.
I’ve said that, maybe one day, we’ll achieve a Star Trek like world where we work looking forward the the permission to enjoy the hollow deck.[/quote]
Since we’re threadjackin here may recommend the book “The Singularity is Near” by Raymond Kurzweil. How do I sum it up..hmmm…I guess it predicts how people will merge with technology and explores the good and bad. Think of it as a legit version of Art Bell episode.
I always liked Star Trek for the same reason that I liked the original Law and Order. They both made you think but in different ways. The technology of Star Trek is ridiculous in some ways.
The biggies are what happens when machines become more intelligent than people and what happens when people augment their own intelligence with technology. To take the second part and transition into politics. I am left wondering whom will be allowed by the PTB to augment themselves, can that be even controlled, ect ect. A big can of worms.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.