jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (26 posts)

Ayan Rand.....light?

  1. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Well, I admit, I have not read 'Atlas Shrugged'. But, since hearing that Paul Ryan is a big fan of it, and makes his staff read it, I kind of knew I would disagree with it.
    But, lo and behold, I heard a blip on the radio today,came home and looked up Ayan Rand. And sure enough.....read this:

    "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

    And I thought halleluyah!

    But then, I thought, wait a minute....Ryan and the Tea-Baglicans are anti-abortion! How can he tout Ayan Rand, and disagree with such a basic principle?

    Then it hit me: he is using her personal principles and applying them to business only!!
    Business is free to do as it pleases, but people may only act as the Tea-Baglicans see fit!

    It's Ayan Rand light...take only the principles that already fit your philosophy, thereby not really having any principles at all!

    as with everything else with them...it's phony. IMO

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ayn Rand was definitely pro-choice.

      But she's not the basis for the Tea Party. Sure, she's had some influence, but always remember that the Tea Party STARTED with Ron Paul, and has since abandoned him.

      They are, today, just neo-conservatives who have forgotten their roots of liberty.

    2. Aya Katz profile image89
      Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This bothers me, too. I was also bothered by the way the new Atlas Shrugged movie skipped all the bits about how conservative social values were much like socialism.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I haven't done any research, but I can say with all confidence that the movie was likely started up by some neo-conservative tea partier instead of the real Libertarian Tea Partiers.

        A libertarian would have been pointing out the idiocy on all sides, and the Neo-Con would find a way to praise conservatives (or just ignore their idiocies).

    3. quotations profile image91
      quotationsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ayn Rand herself was a phony. There are many stories exposing how she failed to live by her basic principles, She even received social assistance http://www.google.ca/search?q=ayn+rand+ … 0&sa=N while criticizing those who did. And she did it under her husband's name "O'Conner" so people wouldn't find out she was being a hypocrite.

  2. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    The book is worth reading.  I have read it several times.

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

      Well, wouldn't this be a basic principle?
      How can Ryan just ignore it?
      Yo no comprende.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I do not know I agree with the quote?

        1. lovemychris profile image81
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Does not compute with me.

          How can he be so diametrically opposed to a woman he claims to admire?

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He has probably not read the book. lol

            It is a bit lengthy. smile

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I read a lot of Thomas Jefferson, and I love his "Declaration of Independence", but I claim not to agree with everything he has said:

            "The tender breasts of ladies were not formed for political convulsions and the French ladies miscalculate much their own happiness when they wander the true field of their influence into that of politicks".

            (As cited in Miller, 1995, p. 180)"

            "[American Women] have the good sense to value domestic happiness above all other... Our good ladies... have been too wise to wrinkle their foreheads with politics. They are contented to soothe and calm the minds of their husbands returning from political debate... It is a comparison of Amazons to Angels".  (comparing American women to French women)"

            I can't help but laugh when reading these quotes.

            The man loved liberty, but he sure did have some pro-man bias.

            1. Aya Katz profile image89
              Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's why Aaron Burr is my favorite founding father. He liked his women smart and educated -- and ready to conquer Mexico!

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I love Aaron Burr because he finally killed that jerk Hamilton.

                Three cheers for Burr!!

                hip hip, HOORAH!
                hip hip, HOORAH!
                hip hip, HOORAH!

                1. Aya Katz profile image89
                  Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, Evan! We agree on something!

  3. BobbiRant profile image60
    BobbiRantposted 5 years ago

    The Rockefellers have pumped big money into Planned Parenthood for years.  Why would Republicans love Planned Parenthood?  Well their aim has always been to cut down on the world population.  Care to GUESS which cultures Specifically? So, no I do not think Republicans have changed their minds (at least not in Private conversations).  Only looks like it to appease the religious people of Some parts of the world, especially America.  They still support contraceptives, including abortions, in other parts of this world.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "They still support contraceptives, including abortions, in other parts of this world."
      Like in the Marinaras Islands, an American territory, where a Department of the Interior report found that "Chinese women were subject to forced abortions and that women and children were subject to forced prostitution in the local sex-tourism industry."

      Yeah, that whole GOP "family values" thing is a load of hooey.

  4. someonewhoknows profile image30
    someonewhoknowsposted 5 years ago

    Ayan Rand is a little too selfish in my opinion.

    A-greed "pun Intended" that people cannot take care of themselves without the wherewithall to do so.

    That said,certain corporations and billionaires have gone way too far to the right and have taken over the governmnent.

    They have in fact been doing it through campaign con-tributions to candidates that they pick or select to run and allow the people to believe they have a choice.

    The people do not select who runs despite the illusion that we do.
    The people can only elect those who have been pre-selected by those who control the selection process.

    1. Aya Katz profile image89
      Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How you can tell they've gone too far to the right and not to the left? And what would the difference be, if the government and businesses have merged, between a left-wing merger or a right wing one? What was the difference between Hitler and Stalin?

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      see, people get mad at companies for lobbying government for bailouts.

      But when individuals do it, we cheer for it.

      The problem isn't "petitioning government", the problem is that the government keeps giving in to companies.

      The 10th amendment makes almost all of those sorts of bailouts/subsidies illegal, but for whatever reason, the people get mad at the companies instead of the government.

      The reason is because the people don't dislike the bailouts and subsidies, they just want the money to go elsewhere.

  5. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    PS, I believe her name is spelled: Ayn Rand.

    http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index

  6. someonewhoknows profile image30
    someonewhoknowsposted 5 years ago

    insider trading is illegal for everyone except for congress,and their aides.

    Congress does better than the average wallstreet trader.It's likely that they are getting insider stock
    tips from lobbyists from certain corporations that want congress to pass or prevent the passage of laws that would affect them 
    The "stock act"  would correct this fault in the stock trading laws.
    However the fact that congress has a vested interest in wheather this law passes is an obvious conflict of interest for any congressmen or their friends who are invested in the stockmarket.

    .http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22congress+and+the+stockmarket%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

    Congress has the skinny on when to bye and sell stock.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Q0K5uBieA

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q … =&aq=f

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      insider trading is one of the dumbest laws around.

      If you came across the information that basically told you "you're going to lose $30 million in 3 weeks if you still hold these stocks"... you'd be an idiot to say "oh well, I'd hate to break the law! Guess I'll lose my entire life's savings!"

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But that's not what the law prohibits.

        It doesn't stop people who 'come across' information and act on it. It prohibits people with privileged access to secret information from using said secret information to enrich themselves before said information becomes public. The insider trading law exists to ensure that the common investor is able to make decisions based on the same information as, say, Warren Buffet has access to.

        If we let the executives of corporations sell their stock in said corporations before the quarterly report comes out, then quarterly reports are useless; all we can go on is whether the execs are holding or dumping. How is that good for business? The economy?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          the next time you make a profit from acting on information that others don't know, then you'll be found guilty of this idiotic law.

          For example: Deepthroat, Woodward and Bernstein made quite a name for themselves using "insider trading" - they exploited non-public information to better their lives.

          Those bastards.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not information that others don't know, but information that others can't know, since it's a company secret.

            Insider trading would allow, say, the execs at an Enron to quietly sell out while letting smaller shareholders take their bath and lose their retirement funds.

            Investigative reporting is not anywhere close to the same as insider trading. Not the same ball park; it's not even the same bleeping sport.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              For God's sake Jeff, stop being right!  It is scaring me.

 
working