It's an odd clip in South Park considering Matt Stone and Trey Parker are libertarians and Ayn Rand is fairly in line with many of the Libertarian views.
Its because liberterians and objectivists never really liked eachother, even though they agree on a lot. Ayn Rand, I heard, hated liberterians too. Found them immoral and so on.
Yep, Atlas Shrugged pretty much does suck. Take an obvious Mary Sue main character, add Narcissism, stretch it out over 1000 pages of rambling dialogue and loosely connected plot and you got Atlas Shrugged.
I'm a libertarian too and I think Atlas Shrugged is a piece of shit. I'm not sure what pisses me off the most about it: the terrible writing, obviously stolen ideas she attempts to pass off as her own (and which retards believe she came up with), or the fact that she's so goddamn smug about everything
That's cute, you thought Ayn Rand's "philosophy" was difficult enough to understand that you expected other people to have had difficulty understanding it too. The only thing I had trouble understanding when I read her books was why other people recommended them to me.
@projectbeard Allow me to help. They recommended them to you because her heroes are all cleanshaven and they were looking for a nice way to encourage you to shave your lousy, repulsive beard. They also heard all your awful libertarian arguments for freedom and felt sorry for you and were trying to help you out.
Another set of incorrect assumptions. I don't have a "lousy, repulsive beard", nor did I ever have any political arguments with the people who recommended me the book. That's 0/3 so far.
the thing that irritates me about the randroids is that I actually went to see the 'Atlas Shrugged' movie...there were like 4 people there...really? i think you guys are a bunch of fake libertarians, you just want to be able to light up a doob whenever you want, and that's about as far as it goes...
Wait...it irritates you that you went to see a movie and there were only four people when you went? And somehow this is indicative of anything? Maybe that the movie sucked?
Maybe book sales would be a better place to start or better yet, understanding Rand was an Objectivist, not Libertarian.
- the movie is important because most people won't read a 645k book, but will see the movie (such as with 'lord of the rings')
- it is indicative, because the movie barely made 25% of the cost, killing the rest of the sequels, yet the audience approval rate is ~80%
- most of the online community that talks up Rand is libertarian, not Objectivist...the are VERY few people who would actually refer to themselves as such...
...so, i guess my point is that most of the 'libertarian' community doesn't actually want greater political or commercial power, they just want to belong to an exclusive group...kind of like Rand herself (tho i love her book and part I of the movie) and Ron Paul - they make sure they are self-marginalizing because if too many people joined, it would be exclusive anymore...
Well I can sort of agree that there are many people who are fanatic about Rand or any other topic, but anyone who is indeed a fan would have read the book. The book itself reached the best seller list so even non libertarians have read it.
If anything is to be used as a benchmark it is the book not the movie, I think it's safe to say that most that read the book "got it" and did not need/want to see a watered down film version.
I'm super glad to see an 18 second clip from an episode of South Park from over a decade ago spark so much anger and hatred in the hearts and minds of so many people. I love you, South Park.
@CholeraNinja South Park CAN be great! I love it! However, it's just sick to applaud the creation of anger and hatred. Period. Reasonable listeners see a clip filled with unreasoned bullcrap, then you applauding the anger it causes. Sad! Divisive intent? Clearly that's in you here.
@skidancin Fine, I'm sad and a jerk. But c'mon, you don't see the ridiculousness of it? One line spoken by a poorly animated idiot makes people turn against each other. The joke was probably thrown in at the last second because they knew it would either make people laugh or slightly offend them. This is the ONLY joke about Rand in South Park history. It's causing heated arguments, and the creators/writers of the show probably don't even remember the joke.
@CholeraNinja Ok, fine. Well said. I see the ridiculousness of people turning against each other over "one line spoken by a poorly animated idiot" even though I'm sure the discussion goes deeper than that. I don't mind that you would find the anger and hatred funny, but like I said, it just doesn't jibe with me to be "glad" for anger and hatred. So I'll stand by that and say, lol, you seem repentant and thus are forgiven! Then again, the arguments did make you laugh. ok, FINE!
To any and all who empathisese with the ideas of rand offer no defence offer no excuses for your thoughts and your ideas offer nothing but your actions be a darwinist an egoist for i assure you a predator offers no such thing to its prey if the prey is fit and strong it will escape to pass on its genes and v. v. It is the only way to change into something better
This is where I can agree that Ayn Rand fucked up. She failed to see that collectivism works on a small scale. If she had kids she would know this and created a new book pointing out how collectivism works but it does not scale up to a large body of politics.
"I know that most men -- not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic, problems -- can seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty -- conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives."
The other choice is that parasites who think they know best how to spend my money that I worked and earned. By what right should they be able to justify taking it? Oh yeah.. Altruism.
Its actually ironic, because Barbrady is a illogical authoritarian, he hates "Atlas Shrugged," as must most of our government, who are illogical authoritarians.
@s7rugg1es It's not ironic. Ayn Rand wrote horrible literature. She had her ideas here and there, but fundamentally it's an art form and her ability to write prose is equivalent to my ability to urinate on a canvas and call it a painting.
From what I see here, it just illustrates what happens when you only read ONE book. In this case it's Atlas Shrugged. I love the book, but disagree with Rand on many points and agree with her on others. Point I make here, is, educate yourselves. PLEASE FOR YOURSELF AND HUMANITY JUST FUCKING READ A BOOK AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR.
Actually, it was quite a read. Loads of fun and good ideas. I read The Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged back to back the summer of 1990. Was she a great novelist? Not really, but she sold a shit load of books. Most popular novel ever. Just ask William F. Buckley and he hated it.
Atlas Shrugged is perhaps one of the best and most important novels ever written. I think that ALL politicians should read it and submit a book review before they are allowed to enter office.
@TheArbiterOfTruth Have you read anything else that is considered philosophically important? Cause Atlas Shrugged doesn't even break the top 50 things people in power should read.
@PulseOfTheMaggots720 "People in power should read ?" You mean like that 2400 page healthcare reform bill?" The "Stimulus" and other things they neglect to read, before voting to pass them, to appease their campaign contributors and cronies. I say before they read ANYTHING on some arbitrary list of 50 books, some asshole thinks they should read, they should read, re-read- and be able to recite the entire US CONSTITUTION. You know, the one that's "Of the people, for the people, by the people"
@TwoChihuahuas Jesus man, calm down. I was just saying Atlas Shrugged isn't all that great. Why are you addressing me like I'm the one wronging you and the rest of the country? I'll rephrase that anyway: Atlas Shrugged doesn't even break the top 50 things anyone should read. I'm pretty sure most of congress reads the bills too, buddy. How else could they know whatever it is their doing is aiding these so-called "cronies"?
@TwoChihuahuas Okay, maybe you read into this message the wrong way. I wasn't implying that "you" were "the asshole" who concocted this "list" of 50 things people in power should read. I guess what I meant to imply, is who and where does this "List" come from? I think any American politician who wants to read an intriguing bit of literature, should start with the US Constitution. Cause it seems to me, that they're more than willing to read any novel, publication or whatever else, instead.
@AnnoyanceHazard Yeah, because I'm so screwed by the government all the time... like when they, ummm... impose minimum wage laws... so I can make a decent amount of money... and uhhh... they're government! They're bad! Fuck the establishment! I guess...
@TwoChihuahuas You mean the one that says minorites aren't people? Great idea for a government. You don't even know whats in the constitution. Quit pretending. If you did know, than you wouldn't respect the document.
@1019079 Neither do you. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that minorities aren't people. If you would actually read it, the 3/5 compromise was about representation. Would it surprise you to know the SLAVE OWNERS wanted them counted as people. Those against slavery did not. Counting the slave as a person meant that slave states would have had more representation in congress.
@1019079 Wow! What a compelling argument. Yes, it was. And free blacks were counted as whole persons.
Article 1 section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
@robrjohnson Its still institutional racism. You have done absolutely nothing to refute my argument, but instead hide behind sarcasm and semantic games.
@1019079 Saying "no it wasn't" isn't an argument. It's 7th grade. You haven't made any arguments. I haven't hidden behind anything. I provided both historical context and constitutional text that states otherwise. No facts are going to change your mind.
@robrjohnson How else was I supposed to respond? You made an argument and I said no. And I have made an argument. An argument has two parts: discovery and advocacy. Counting minorities as three fifths of a person for whatever reason is still very racist.
@1019079 Now who's hiding behind semantics. Again, it's not a clause about personhood. It's a clause about determining the number of representatives. The free states didn't want the slave states to count slaves as persons. Counting a slave as a person for purposes of representation means that the slave states have more representation in congress than the free states do, which furthers the oppressor agenda. In a repressive society, you want to limit the slave owner representation.
@1019079 Any free person and Indians who were taxed could be counted as persons. It's not a clause against minorities. Indians who were not taxed were separate. So you couldn't claim to represent them (they were their own society). I'm not saying that they didn't exhibit racism. What I'm saying is that the Constitution does not codify who is and isn't a person in terms of human rights.
I don't think Stone and Parker are bashing the book, I think they're bashing the morons (officer Barbrady is a moron) who just dismiss the book as garbage, which it is not. Also reflecting about how because of this supposed piece of shit, he's never reading again, because he's doesn't like the truth (okay people, nothing to see here), kind of like our modern day government.
@madderbass Theyre bashing the book. they dont like conservatives OR liberals. Im not sure of the reasons they dont like liberals...Something to do with us being annoying beyond description when we think we're doing the right thing (and we are.), while exaggerating the effects of one thing well beyond where it should be. But they do quite clearly think bizarre conservatives are awful too.
Of course that would require you typing worlds into google to find out so best left to speculation eh?
@etherraichu Of course they hate conservatives and you fucking liberals. And what does Google have to do with any of this?
Atlas Shrugged as well is a book loathed by conservatives (even though some of them are being stupid enough to like it) AND liberals, because Ayn Rand being an objectivist loathed both sides, just like (guess what!) Stone and Parker! Get a clue, this Barbrady thing isn't that hard to decipher, it's clear what they're intentions were.
@t3hpwner3r I never said it was deep, nor am I implying it is. I'm saying it's not that hard to decipher, and it's really obvious if you watch the entire episode what in a whole it's meaning really is.
This was, hands down, one of the worst books I have ever read.
1,069 pages of monotonous soap-boxing, no interesting or likeable characters at all, and a load of complete hogwash for a philosophy that took away two months of my life.
@scottski02 no wonder you didn't like it, if it took me two months to read it, I would be mad too, but instead it took me about a week. It could have been a lot shorter and brought the same message, that is my only complaint. I will not dismiss the message, or close my mind to its ideas merely because of either it's length, or because of the opinions of critics of this book.
@northcottmichael I DID think over her philosophy, I didn't dismiss it just because of the length. I just thought it was horrible. I hated her anti-religious propaganda (please don't hate on me for that if you're atheist; i have nothing against you if you are) and how easily she grouped people into black and white groups, as well as how each of those groups were awful. In this world either you're a freedom-hating, looting communist, or you're a selfish, uncaring, emotionless jerk.
@scottski02 It doesn't seem like you thought over her philosophy if those are your conclusions. Emotion and being a jerk are irrelevant to any philosophy, they are behavioral choices. The ability to seperate reason from emotion is not a failing in a human or in a philosophy. Let me ask you this though, if someone comes into my home, tries to boss me around and take my stuff, am I obligated to be selfless, caring, and empathetic toward them?
@northcottmichael I think there's a difference between caring for others, even those who've offended you and bending over and taking punishment you don't deserve. I would try to understand the motivation behind their actions to see if they really are evil or they're just as much a pawn as yourself. Like when Rearden's anger at the people who killed that one boy at the raid on his mills is directed not at the thugs, but at the professors who were teaching the BS that lead to the situation.
@northcottmichael With all due respect, I completely disagree that "Emotion and being a jerk [is] irrelevant to any philosophy." Much of philosophy is based off understanding and trying to find a better path (subjectively or objectively) of human behavior - much of it works through reasoning - and that reason is used to brighten the human condition. In fact, I can't think of one philosophy (and i'm aware of many schools) that doesn't involve emotion one way or another.
@forttrres Considering that philosophy is a logical reflection of human behavior and emotion is pretty much the opposite of logic, I'd have to say they are as different as theory and practice. If my philosophy dictates that I should try to be nice to people, if some asshole cuts me off in traffic, I'm probably not going to be thinking about how honking at them is going to be incongruent with my philosophy.
@northcottmichael Well I wouldn't call emotion the opposite of logic, but they are different, that is true. But not all philosophy is objectively "a logical reflection of human behavior": much of modern philosophy is a rebellion against pure rational thought.
Your traffic analogy is interesting. I have to say that, as a philosophy is your way of life, against it is borderline inauthentic toward your way of living, or desired life (unless you were to make a quick laderal haha).
@northcottmichael Also, like I said in my other post, I hated all the characters for these reasons. I can think of only two that were somewhat likeable. Robert Stadler, because we did get a look into his past and how he used to be a good man, and even after he joins the communists he is horrified by what is going on.
The other is Cherryl Brooks, because she did show some optimism for humanity in general, and I felt more sympathy for her because of how much Jim Taggart torments her.
I loved that book..I could not put it down....Screw southpark..they are stupid idiots..LONG LIVE GINGER!!!!!! They are getting really stale. HEy letas make fun of everyone nd show everyone how smart we are...you have to remember..all of their characters come from inside them..what does that say about them..They seem to me to be just another couple of Nihlists that Respect nothing value nothing and fall into the Post Mod Narrative haters group. They drag society down, not up.
Jewish nutcase, a Suzy Greenberg... "an artist she may be, but a genius she is not... says she wants to be a sociologist, but she better first get checked by a neurologist."
@BlackHatZane From my experiences in discussing sociopolitical stuff with people, they tend to hate it more as they get older, so wouldn't you want someone who is still young and impressionable to read it, not some one who is older?
@Aleksandr011 I wasn't hinting at the fact that older Americans, enjoy it. I was hinting at what happens in the book, and how highly likely it is for its events to happen.
@BlackHatZane I read it when I was a teenager. I re-read it as an adult. I laugh at my youth, and easily impressionable we are at an age of individuation during socialization, which would make sense why it appealed to me and many younger audiences--but as they grew up, at least for myself with much more understanding of ontology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics, they realize how wrong Rand's simplifications are of the world. :-)
@soyerpanzen Well, as done in Atlas Shrugged, you people who enjoy socialism, that's fine. I agree with most subjectivism, having different political views ISN'T wrong. But forcing capitalists, anarchists, libertarians, and conservatives to live by a socialist or liberal government IS wrong. So when the time arises, when there's a new place to live by my way, I will gladly leave America to fall by your hands.
@BlackHatZane Okidoki. Hugs and kisses. I think you don't get enough of them for you to be so rash and jump to conclusions. But, jokes aside, I hope everyone had a good Halloween Holiday. Stay warm and safe, guys.
@thehoffmanapprentice You take your marching orders from cartoons? It's a funny show, but that's it. I can't believe anyone actually takes it seriously, and I don't think Stone and Parker actually intend for anyone to take it seriously.
That's the thing about South Park, if they say something people agree with they say "yay South Park speaks the truth man." Than they something people don't like and "Oh it's just a cartoon". Matt and Tray's main purpose is to be funny, but they are also respected political commentators. Anytime something happens in the world people always want to see Matt and Trays take on it. I don't agree with about half of what they say, but I still respect them. No I don't take marching orders from anyone.
That's the whole point of my comment. Matt and Trey are libertarians, so you would think they would like the book but they don't. That shows how bad it is. Also objectivism doesn't equal libertarianism. They similar economically, but many aspects of objectivist beliefs that are not shared by libertarians.
As a recovered Liberal its clear you're the biggest douchebag on the block. You were a shit liberal who just wanted to get laid and fit in I bet, not actually knowing what the fuck you were talking about, just like Economics and Ayn Rand. Go look outside and see what your precious Free Market has done to our lives. Fuck anybody who likes Ayn Rand.
Not particualry a fan of Ayn Rand. I tried reading Atlas Shrugged but got bored after 600 (!?) pages. But, it´s not like it is the free market that is behind the debt crisis. It´s all about debts that are impossible to pay. And where do they come from? From GOVERNMENT loans, from GOVERNMENT bailouts, GOVERNMENTS trying to "create jobs" and debts from healthcare-socialism in the USA. Accualy it was libertarians who warned for this first. Ayn Rand was arrogant but so are you.
America doesn't have socialized healthcare, to its detriment. That's largely the reason America has among the worst healthcare standards in the entire first world.
Though one could argue that the market being unrestrained is why the government is now deep in debt. The government, for all intents and purposes, is owned by lobby groups and corporations. That's the problem. The free market is gone because the most successful capitalists weren't held in check.
Still Obama-Care have created a debt of 821 700 000 000 this far. You don´t have "to argue" why the government is in deep debt. It isn´t harder than that you have to look at the spendings.The US government have taken a Keynsian approach the last 8 years in how to achive a better economy when the system is falling appart. To put it simple, especially under Bush and even more so under Obama the government go with the strategy of paying debts with... more debts!
I don't support Obama-Care, I support a style of socialized healthcare like in Germany or Australia. Yeah, that isn't free. Luckily, there is a lot of unnecessary bloat elsewhere in the budget from which to cut.
Also, the idea of inserting capital into the economy to get it moving isn't necessarily a bad one, as you assert. The problem is in execution. They gave the bailout funds to their corporate masters (the people who actually run this country) instead of the people. (cont.)
Naturally, that didn't work. That just made the richest one percent richer.
The one thing Obama -has- wanted to do that would help has been repeatedly rejected by Tea Party conservatives: raising taxes on the top 1%. Even with the proposed spending cuts, the budget will still be unbalanced with raising taxes on someone. Naturally, 'someone' should be the people with the majority of the capital in the country.
That used to be the middle class. It's not anymore.
Stimulating the economy is a bad idea. I suggest you watch the documentaries "meltdown", "money as debt" and "overdose". Showing empirical examples of that it is a mistake. USA will acually be a poor nation with low standards in about 5 years. China will be the top economy and the greatest popular culture phenomenons of the world will be chinese insead of american (like the example above - South Park). The fashion, the TV-shows, the Music etc. China doesn´t stimulate but lends
Unfortunately, I can't turn time forward five years to prove you wrong.
I suggest you watch 'random liberal bullshit propaganda made by Michael Moore'. Suggesting you watch propaganda bullshit is so much easier than actually forming a unique, coherent thought using my grey matter.
The above paragraph was sarcasm, by the way. I don't trust propaganda pieces on either side, and decline your invitation to dine on some.
Michael Moore can uncover cases of corruption in things like insurance companies but he knows nothing about economy at all. I can say why the US is going down. USA have taking large loans from it´s central bank which is a quasi-private bank, Federal Reserve, since 1913. They have borrowed so much that they can´t possibly manage to pay back anything. So the Federal Reserve have lowered the interest rate from 7% to almost nothing like 0.5-0.1% to save America. (TBCont.)
The point. You missed it. I was saying that you referring me to propaganda pieces doesn't interest me. Both sides make bad propaganda, and none of it interests me.
Nah, you can go to the official government website of the central bank and look at the interest rate history. Look at random newspaper articles from whatever liberal/democratic newpaper you would read and see the sums Obama and the other "main dudes" are loaning. You can look up and read about the world wide systems of "fractional reserve lending" (even @ wikipedia), look up the official numbers of US-debt. Watch the interview with Greenspan, the congress hearing of Bernanke..
I don't support the central banking system, and I don't recall saying I did. In fact, I distinctly recall saying that bailing the banks out was a bad idea.
Also, I don't read any liberal/democratic newspapers, thanks (in fact, the newspaper is going extinct, grandpa). But if this is the level of discourse that we're going to have, I have no interest in talking to you. You aren't addressing what I've said, you're copy/pasting conservative talking points.
I meant newspaper @ the internet. And no they are not going extinct. Im not conservative. Im not copy pasting. Those things i mentioned are left out totaly from politics in the US. I just proved that it ain´t going to "be better" in the US, it just can´t. I love american pop-culture but this is facts. Consevatives don´t have the solution either so I don´t care about who wins the election, it´s already too late.
Oh? Well I have to apologize, then. I'd assumed you were a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth Ron Paul supporter.
Though your assertion that China is going to be the world power after America's economic collapse falls flat because.. well, if America collapses they have no one to sell to, and they never get all that money that they're owed. It's like they hold war bonds from the southern side of the civil war. China has a vested interest in keeping America afloat for just that reason.
I prefer Ron Paul before any other republican but no, he can´t save the US either so he´s not "the saviour" like the supporters thinks. True - if US goes down completely China won´t have their money and I don´t know what the result of that is going to be. But I personally think they lended all those sums to the US just so that america could destroy their own economy. In the end China almost doesn´t have any debts at all so they don´t need the cash back.China will still be no1
Here Mr Greenspan the Federal Reserve Chairman of the Bush-Obama years says how the US can escape default. There is nothing else to do than pay loans with loans and to print money :) The debt is up to in a month 15 000 000 000 000 and the debt per citizen is about 47 000 $. Printing money worked for Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe June 2008 the annual rate of price growth was 11.2 million percent, and their currency was almost worth nothing
The lowering of the interest rate is a keynsian trick to help an economy in crisis, the thing is this can´t go on forever - it is a temporary solution. The Federal Reserve have promised to keep the rate to almost nothing - which is like Giving the US money. They depend on getting money and don´t having to pay it back. The only thing left to do according to Alan Greenspan (former head chief of the national bank) is to "print money". Like Zimbabwe did. The dollar is going down.
So if the healthcare isn´t socialized in the USA then a REAL socialized healthcare system would be worth (in debts) at least around 1500000000000 $. Someone will have to pay those debts back, and it´s not like the poor people wouldn´t be hurt when it is time to pay that back to the banks, private persons (the rich) and other governments. China have used the stupidity of american spending-politics and borrowed the americans large sums.
@thekraustofski I looked around for this Free Market you so hate. Couldn't find it. Just a bunch a centralized planners taking over even more control of our economic lives and laying down more moral hazards for the future.
What I realize is that what I stated is true. Meanwhile...having the MSM to give you direct downloads does make it easier. As a RECOVERED-liberal...I still have my play book...recall the talking-points and tactics. This is just another case of 'double-standards' good...it it supports the current liberal mantra. However, intellectual honesty requires one to look beyond...and measure equally. Even if.....especially if....it will get you called racist.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen... the ultra realistic world where the wealthy will just stop making any money at all if you dare to ask them to pay taxes or be subject to regulations to keep them from befouling the environment too much or abusing their workers too much. The world where the "productive class" is individually and completely responsible for their own success while those who actually do the work to make their products or perform their services are considered parasites.
Respond to this video... Oddly...when I suggested that 'high sales' of Obama's book didn't prove BRILLIANCE...I was called racist. Come on libbies...make a decision and STICK to it. It's called a CORE BELIEF.
You DO realize that "liberals" don't all sit down together and decide on one position we will all have on things.. especially your youtube comments, right?
@Theliberty411 Hahahhahahahahhahahahahha you react like a 12 year old. You said "please explain", meaning "please explain what you mean SIG551P". I answered what I thought he meant. Trolling you and succeed. Didnt you get that?
The reason that the book doesn't sit well with many people, is because they are the leaches. Who thinks they can properly run JPMorgan? How about Exxon? You complain about how these people get paid to much. Why aren't you complaining about sports athletes getting paid to much? Why aren't you complaining that American Idol surpasses the Discovery Channel and History channel in viewership. Go F-CK YOURSELF!
South Park co-creator Trey Parker is actually a registered member of the Libertarian Party.[2] Fellow co-creator Matt Stone sums up their views with the comment "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."[3]
the parallels between the US gov't in atlas shrugged and the current administration are stunning. In South Park, Barbrady is an idiot so of course he wouldn't like the book or understand it.
Doesn't surprise me that the lowbrow hacks that make South Park are objectivists. And they are condemning Mormonism and Scientology? Maybe you South Park Republicans and self described "libertarians" should look in the mirror the next time you condemn a cult seeing how you shill for that fraud Ayn Rand. L. Ron Hubbard has nothing on Ayn Rand when it comes to unthinking followers.
TempIarLeonem 2 days ago
It's an odd clip in South Park considering Matt Stone and Trey Parker are libertarians and Ayn Rand is fairly in line with many of the Libertarian views.
candymanMVHS 5 days ago
I love the fact that even old South Park videos can PISS people off.
gulbirk 1 week ago
Comment removed
chrischinchilla2 1 week ago
Officer Barbrady does pretty accurately represent people who can't relate to Ayn Rand.
l337pwnage 1 week ago
ahahahaha all the randtards are here voting the video down. Funny.
tstruss912 1 week ago 2
Guys, this was clearly a sarcasm from Trey and Matt. Officer Barbrady is a well known idiot.
8DanielDag8 2 weeks ago
@8DanielDag8 but kyle and stan said "hurra barbrady" with happy faces, like if they agree.
MaurizioMorti 5 days ago
@MaurizioMorti Yeah, like 10 year olds love reading books. They even hired Mexicans to write essays...about books.
8DanielDag8 5 days ago
I thought Matt and Trey were libertarians. Not that Ayn Rand was the same as a libertarian but you know what I mean.
rumbler227 2 weeks ago
@rumbler227
Its because liberterians and objectivists never really liked eachother, even though they agree on a lot. Ayn Rand, I heard, hated liberterians too. Found them immoral and so on.
Svankmajer 2 weeks ago
Ponies brought me here.
DwarfNinjas 2 weeks ago
Fags, fags everywhere.
JuliusLayDying 2 weeks ago
This is a bout ponies now
xMarty182x 2 weeks ago 2
It's funny because Atlas from Portal 2 looks like he's constantly shrugging.
Xennified 3 weeks ago
It's funny because it's true
nekocekoBiH 3 weeks ago
Yep, Atlas Shrugged pretty much does suck. Take an obvious Mary Sue main character, add Narcissism, stretch it out over 1000 pages of rambling dialogue and loosely connected plot and you got Atlas Shrugged.
seriousbees 3 weeks ago
oh come on guys, is Officer Barbrady, what do you expect from him?
mrsayrocknoanime 3 weeks ago
MOVE ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
3rdEyeSpeaks 3 weeks ago
did anybody here actually read the book?
HindsightPOV 3 weeks ago
Shit, I had always said William F. Buckley was the Atlas Shrugged critic of the highest intellectual caliber. Wasn't aware of Officer Barbrady.
rmoyer 4 weeks ago
Aren't Matt and Trey libertarians? And they still hate "Atlas Shrugged." lol
2000sDigitalBoy 4 weeks ago
@2000sDigitalBoy
I'm a libertarian too and I think Atlas Shrugged is a piece of shit. I'm not sure what pisses me off the most about it: the terrible writing, obviously stolen ideas she attempts to pass off as her own (and which retards believe she came up with), or the fact that she's so goddamn smug about everything
projectbeard 3 weeks ago
@projectbeard Probably what pisses you off the most about it is that it's way over your head and you're a lousy non-Objectivist libertarian.
Formobject 3 weeks ago
@Formobject
That's cute, you thought Ayn Rand's "philosophy" was difficult enough to understand that you expected other people to have had difficulty understanding it too. The only thing I had trouble understanding when I read her books was why other people recommended them to me.
projectbeard 3 weeks ago
@projectbeard Allow me to help. They recommended them to you because her heroes are all cleanshaven and they were looking for a nice way to encourage you to shave your lousy, repulsive beard. They also heard all your awful libertarian arguments for freedom and felt sorry for you and were trying to help you out.
Formobject 3 weeks ago
@Formobject
Another set of incorrect assumptions. I don't have a "lousy, repulsive beard", nor did I ever have any political arguments with the people who recommended me the book. That's 0/3 so far.
projectbeard 3 weeks ago
he said her name wrong....just saying....
dzordevjt 1 month ago
@dzordevjt Cut him a break, he just barely learned how to read
thelordofhellaz 3 weeks ago
I have not read a page of this book, but this comment war makes me happy <3
thisisacalamity 1 month ago
the thing that irritates me about the randroids is that I actually went to see the 'Atlas Shrugged' movie...there were like 4 people there...really? i think you guys are a bunch of fake libertarians, you just want to be able to light up a doob whenever you want, and that's about as far as it goes...
jcfbell3001 1 month ago
@jcfbell3001
Wait...it irritates you that you went to see a movie and there were only four people when you went? And somehow this is indicative of anything? Maybe that the movie sucked?
Maybe book sales would be a better place to start or better yet, understanding Rand was an Objectivist, not Libertarian.
chocomalk 1 month ago
@chocomalk
- the movie is important because most people won't read a 645k book, but will see the movie (such as with 'lord of the rings')
- it is indicative, because the movie barely made 25% of the cost, killing the rest of the sequels, yet the audience approval rate is ~80%
- most of the online community that talks up Rand is libertarian, not Objectivist...the are VERY few people who would actually refer to themselves as such...
jcfbell3001 1 month ago
@jcfbell3001 Your numbers are wrong. Seems they ARE making the further installments, too.
skidancin 2 weeks ago
@chocomalk
...so, i guess my point is that most of the 'libertarian' community doesn't actually want greater political or commercial power, they just want to belong to an exclusive group...kind of like Rand herself (tho i love her book and part I of the movie) and Ron Paul - they make sure they are self-marginalizing because if too many people joined, it would be exclusive anymore...
jcfbell3001 1 month ago
@jcfbell3001
Well I can sort of agree that there are many people who are fanatic about Rand or any other topic, but anyone who is indeed a fan would have read the book. The book itself reached the best seller list so even non libertarians have read it.
If anything is to be used as a benchmark it is the book not the movie, I think it's safe to say that most that read the book "got it" and did not need/want to see a watered down film version.
chocomalk 1 month ago
@chocomalk So true, a tome of that intensity cannot be condensed into 3 films.
After the first film, I was sitting there going "Jesus, you guys missed so much of the plot".
I think it should have been a nine-part mini-series. That is a summer replacement season in today's television viewing schedule.
userdenied58 3 weeks ago
I'm super glad to see an 18 second clip from an episode of South Park from over a decade ago spark so much anger and hatred in the hearts and minds of so many people. I love you, South Park.
CholeraNinja 1 month ago 61
@CholeraNinja WELL I LOVE *YOU*
thursday13 1 month ago
@CholeraNinja South Park CAN be great! I love it! However, it's just sick to applaud the creation of anger and hatred. Period. Reasonable listeners see a clip filled with unreasoned bullcrap, then you applauding the anger it causes. Sad! Divisive intent? Clearly that's in you here.
skidancin 2 weeks ago
@skidancin Fine, I'm sad and a jerk. But c'mon, you don't see the ridiculousness of it? One line spoken by a poorly animated idiot makes people turn against each other. The joke was probably thrown in at the last second because they knew it would either make people laugh or slightly offend them. This is the ONLY joke about Rand in South Park history. It's causing heated arguments, and the creators/writers of the show probably don't even remember the joke.
CholeraNinja 2 weeks ago 2
@CholeraNinja Ok, fine. Well said. I see the ridiculousness of people turning against each other over "one line spoken by a poorly animated idiot" even though I'm sure the discussion goes deeper than that. I don't mind that you would find the anger and hatred funny, but like I said, it just doesn't jibe with me to be "glad" for anger and hatred. So I'll stand by that and say, lol, you seem repentant and thus are forgiven! Then again, the arguments did make you laugh. ok, FINE!
skidancin 2 weeks ago
Hahahaha, randroid are pissed and raging.
lovingsingleton 1 month ago
Wait till he sees the movie...
Bluemagus 1 month ago
To any and all who empathisese with the ideas of rand offer no defence offer no excuses for your thoughts and your ideas offer nothing but your actions be a darwinist an egoist for i assure you a predator offers no such thing to its prey if the prey is fit and strong it will escape to pass on its genes and v. v. It is the only way to change into something better
dr2407 2 months ago
Ayn Rand: "My kids are just parasites feeding off my hard work. So, I drowned them in a bath tub."
quickstring 2 months ago
@quickstring
This is where I can agree that Ayn Rand fucked up. She failed to see that collectivism works on a small scale. If she had kids she would know this and created a new book pointing out how collectivism works but it does not scale up to a large body of politics.
Or she will end up like this...
See next comment...
davincij15 1 month ago
@quickstring
"I know that most men -- not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic, problems -- can seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty -- conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives."
davincij15 1 month ago
The other choice is that parasites who think they know best how to spend my money that I worked and earned. By what right should they be able to justify taking it? Oh yeah.. Altruism.
MyITRcom 2 months ago
Its actually ironic, because Barbrady is a illogical authoritarian, he hates "Atlas Shrugged," as must most of our government, who are illogical authoritarians.
s7rugg1es 2 months ago
@s7rugg1es It's not ironic. Ayn Rand wrote horrible literature. She had her ideas here and there, but fundamentally it's an art form and her ability to write prose is equivalent to my ability to urinate on a canvas and call it a painting.
aluisious 2 months ago
From what I see here, it just illustrates what happens when you only read ONE book. In this case it's Atlas Shrugged. I love the book, but disagree with Rand on many points and agree with her on others. Point I make here, is, educate yourselves. PLEASE FOR YOURSELF AND HUMANITY JUST FUCKING READ A BOOK AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR.
AnubisEye009 2 months ago
Actually, it was quite a read. Loads of fun and good ideas. I read The Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged back to back the summer of 1990. Was she a great novelist? Not really, but she sold a shit load of books. Most popular novel ever. Just ask William F. Buckley and he hated it.
eqsmooth 3 months ago
To all right winged nut jobs. The consitution actually says that the government has the right to tax you so SHUT UP. And even if it didnt, who cares?
You threat the thing like a fucking bible. It wasnt written in our time, so how could they know that it would suit our time?
The Norwegian constitution from 1814 says Jews arent allowed to enter Norway. Does that mean Jews shouldnt enter Norway? OF COURSE NOT YOU DICKHEADS.
gulbirk 3 months ago
Atlas Shrugged is perhaps one of the best and most important novels ever written. I think that ALL politicians should read it and submit a book review before they are allowed to enter office.
TheArbiterOfTruth 3 months ago
@TheArbiterOfTruth Have you read anything else that is considered philosophically important? Cause Atlas Shrugged doesn't even break the top 50 things people in power should read.
PulseOfTheMaggots720 3 months ago
@PulseOfTheMaggots720 "People in power should read ?" You mean like that 2400 page healthcare reform bill?" The "Stimulus" and other things they neglect to read, before voting to pass them, to appease their campaign contributors and cronies. I say before they read ANYTHING on some arbitrary list of 50 books, some asshole thinks they should read, they should read, re-read- and be able to recite the entire US CONSTITUTION. You know, the one that's "Of the people, for the people, by the people"
TwoChihuahuas 3 months ago 16
@TwoChihuahuas Jesus man, calm down. I was just saying Atlas Shrugged isn't all that great. Why are you addressing me like I'm the one wronging you and the rest of the country? I'll rephrase that anyway: Atlas Shrugged doesn't even break the top 50 things anyone should read. I'm pretty sure most of congress reads the bills too, buddy. How else could they know whatever it is their doing is aiding these so-called "cronies"?
PulseOfTheMaggots720 3 months ago
@TwoChihuahuas Okay, maybe you read into this message the wrong way. I wasn't implying that "you" were "the asshole" who concocted this "list" of 50 things people in power should read. I guess what I meant to imply, is who and where does this "List" come from? I think any American politician who wants to read an intriguing bit of literature, should start with the US Constitution. Cause it seems to me, that they're more than willing to read any novel, publication or whatever else, instead.
TwoChihuahuas 3 months ago
@TwoChihuahuas Or maybe YOU should read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner...
MeanderingBeing 3 months ago
@MeanderingBeing Of the People for the People By the People sounds a lot like SOCIALISM.
MrHammod60 3 months ago
@MrHammod60 uuhhhhh... I think you responded to the wrong person...
MeanderingBeing 3 months ago
@TwoChihuahuas "Screw the people" is being also added today.
AnnoyanceHazard 1 month ago 2
@AnnoyanceHazard Yeah, because I'm so screwed by the government all the time... like when they, ummm... impose minimum wage laws... so I can make a decent amount of money... and uhhh... they're government! They're bad! Fuck the establishment! I guess...
MezaseMaster 3 weeks ago 6
@MezaseMaster You really have no sence of humour, do you?
AnnoyanceHazard 3 weeks ago
@TwoChihuahuas i agree, but "Of the people, for the people, by the people" is from President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
Farmboy1927 1 month ago
@TwoChihuahuas You mean the one that says minorites aren't people? Great idea for a government. You don't even know whats in the constitution. Quit pretending. If you did know, than you wouldn't respect the document.
1019079 2 weeks ago
@1019079 Neither do you. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that minorities aren't people. If you would actually read it, the 3/5 compromise was about representation. Would it surprise you to know the SLAVE OWNERS wanted them counted as people. Those against slavery did not. Counting the slave as a person meant that slave states would have had more representation in congress.
robrjohnson 2 weeks ago
@robrjohnson No it wasn't.
1019079 2 weeks ago
@1019079 Wow! What a compelling argument. Yes, it was. And free blacks were counted as whole persons.
Article 1 section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
robrjohnson 2 weeks ago
@robrjohnson Its still institutional racism. You have done absolutely nothing to refute my argument, but instead hide behind sarcasm and semantic games.
1019079 1 week ago
@1019079 Saying "no it wasn't" isn't an argument. It's 7th grade. You haven't made any arguments. I haven't hidden behind anything. I provided both historical context and constitutional text that states otherwise. No facts are going to change your mind.
robrjohnson 1 week ago
@robrjohnson How else was I supposed to respond? You made an argument and I said no. And I have made an argument. An argument has two parts: discovery and advocacy. Counting minorities as three fifths of a person for whatever reason is still very racist.
1019079 1 week ago
@1019079 Now who's hiding behind semantics. Again, it's not a clause about personhood. It's a clause about determining the number of representatives. The free states didn't want the slave states to count slaves as persons. Counting a slave as a person for purposes of representation means that the slave states have more representation in congress than the free states do, which furthers the oppressor agenda. In a repressive society, you want to limit the slave owner representation.
robrjohnson 1 week ago
@1019079 Any free person and Indians who were taxed could be counted as persons. It's not a clause against minorities. Indians who were not taxed were separate. So you couldn't claim to represent them (they were their own society). I'm not saying that they didn't exhibit racism. What I'm saying is that the Constitution does not codify who is and isn't a person in terms of human rights.
robrjohnson 1 week ago
@TwoChihuahuas the constitution? that thing George W. Bush called "Just a goddamned piece of paper"?
emmers57 1 week ago
@TheArbiterOfTruth You are a deluded moron.
Glasya666 3 months ago
I don't think Stone and Parker are bashing the book, I think they're bashing the morons (officer Barbrady is a moron) who just dismiss the book as garbage, which it is not. Also reflecting about how because of this supposed piece of shit, he's never reading again, because he's doesn't like the truth (okay people, nothing to see here), kind of like our modern day government.
madderbass 3 months ago
@madderbass i hope it was their goal.
notengonickcojones 3 months ago
@madderbass Theyre bashing the book. they dont like conservatives OR liberals. Im not sure of the reasons they dont like liberals...Something to do with us being annoying beyond description when we think we're doing the right thing (and we are.), while exaggerating the effects of one thing well beyond where it should be. But they do quite clearly think bizarre conservatives are awful too.
Of course that would require you typing worlds into google to find out so best left to speculation eh?
etherraichu 3 months ago
@etherraichu Of course they hate conservatives and you fucking liberals. And what does Google have to do with any of this?
Atlas Shrugged as well is a book loathed by conservatives (even though some of them are being stupid enough to like it) AND liberals, because Ayn Rand being an objectivist loathed both sides, just like (guess what!) Stone and Parker! Get a clue, this Barbrady thing isn't that hard to decipher, it's clear what they're intentions were.
madderbass 3 months ago
@madderbass Did you actually convince yourself of this or is it a joke comment
That fucking Officer Barbrady quote isn't as deep as you think not even near
t3hpwner3r 3 months ago
@t3hpwner3r I never said it was deep, nor am I implying it is. I'm saying it's not that hard to decipher, and it's really obvious if you watch the entire episode what in a whole it's meaning really is.
madderbass 3 months ago
The only people that praise Rand for her ideas are people that have no interest in ideas.
pastafarianprophet 3 months ago
This was, hands down, one of the worst books I have ever read.
1,069 pages of monotonous soap-boxing, no interesting or likeable characters at all, and a load of complete hogwash for a philosophy that took away two months of my life.
scottski02 3 months ago
@scottski02 no wonder you didn't like it, if it took me two months to read it, I would be mad too, but instead it took me about a week. It could have been a lot shorter and brought the same message, that is my only complaint. I will not dismiss the message, or close my mind to its ideas merely because of either it's length, or because of the opinions of critics of this book.
northcottmichael 3 months ago
@northcottmichael I DID think over her philosophy, I didn't dismiss it just because of the length. I just thought it was horrible. I hated her anti-religious propaganda (please don't hate on me for that if you're atheist; i have nothing against you if you are) and how easily she grouped people into black and white groups, as well as how each of those groups were awful. In this world either you're a freedom-hating, looting communist, or you're a selfish, uncaring, emotionless jerk.
scottski02 3 months ago
@scottski02 It doesn't seem like you thought over her philosophy if those are your conclusions. Emotion and being a jerk are irrelevant to any philosophy, they are behavioral choices. The ability to seperate reason from emotion is not a failing in a human or in a philosophy. Let me ask you this though, if someone comes into my home, tries to boss me around and take my stuff, am I obligated to be selfless, caring, and empathetic toward them?
northcottmichael 3 months ago
@northcottmichael I think there's a difference between caring for others, even those who've offended you and bending over and taking punishment you don't deserve. I would try to understand the motivation behind their actions to see if they really are evil or they're just as much a pawn as yourself. Like when Rearden's anger at the people who killed that one boy at the raid on his mills is directed not at the thugs, but at the professors who were teaching the BS that lead to the situation.
scottski02 3 months ago
@northcottmichael With all due respect, I completely disagree that "Emotion and being a jerk [is] irrelevant to any philosophy." Much of philosophy is based off understanding and trying to find a better path (subjectively or objectively) of human behavior - much of it works through reasoning - and that reason is used to brighten the human condition. In fact, I can't think of one philosophy (and i'm aware of many schools) that doesn't involve emotion one way or another.
forttrres 2 months ago
@forttrres Considering that philosophy is a logical reflection of human behavior and emotion is pretty much the opposite of logic, I'd have to say they are as different as theory and practice. If my philosophy dictates that I should try to be nice to people, if some asshole cuts me off in traffic, I'm probably not going to be thinking about how honking at them is going to be incongruent with my philosophy.
northcottmichael 2 months ago
@northcottmichael Well I wouldn't call emotion the opposite of logic, but they are different, that is true. But not all philosophy is objectively "a logical reflection of human behavior": much of modern philosophy is a rebellion against pure rational thought.
Your traffic analogy is interesting. I have to say that, as a philosophy is your way of life, against it is borderline inauthentic toward your way of living, or desired life (unless you were to make a quick laderal haha).
forttrres 2 months ago
@northcottmichael Also, like I said in my other post, I hated all the characters for these reasons. I can think of only two that were somewhat likeable. Robert Stadler, because we did get a look into his past and how he used to be a good man, and even after he joins the communists he is horrified by what is going on.
The other is Cherryl Brooks, because she did show some optimism for humanity in general, and I felt more sympathy for her because of how much Jim Taggart torments her.
scottski02 3 months ago
@Epicnerdgasm
I usually love literature, but this was bullshit.
HypaSonicDeathMonkey 3 months ago
@HypaSonicDeathMonkey youre bullshit
wtficantgetausername 3 months ago
@wtficantgetausername
Hugs and kisses~
HypaSonicDeathMonkey 3 months ago
@HypaSonicDeathMonkey xoxo
wtficantgetausername 3 months ago
I loved that book..I could not put it down....Screw southpark..they are stupid idiots..LONG LIVE GINGER!!!!!! They are getting really stale. HEy letas make fun of everyone nd show everyone how smart we are...you have to remember..all of their characters come from inside them..what does that say about them..They seem to me to be just another couple of Nihlists that Respect nothing value nothing and fall into the Post Mod Narrative haters group. They drag society down, not up.
doobersmanster 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's the best way to get people to read the book?
NonNonConformist 4 months ago
Jewish nutcase, a Suzy Greenberg... "an artist she may be, but a genius she is not... says she wants to be a sociologist, but she better first get checked by a neurologist."
adamkadmon1977 4 months ago
Stone and Parker arent' biased liberals either, they are libertarians. That just shows how bad this book is.
thehoffmanapprentice 4 months ago
@thehoffmanapprentice You've never read the book have you? .....wai for a few years, and you'll see exactly what it has to offer.
BlackHatZane 4 months ago
@BlackHatZane From my experiences in discussing sociopolitical stuff with people, they tend to hate it more as they get older, so wouldn't you want someone who is still young and impressionable to read it, not some one who is older?
Aleksandr011 4 months ago
@Aleksandr011 I wasn't hinting at the fact that older Americans, enjoy it. I was hinting at what happens in the book, and how highly likely it is for its events to happen.
BlackHatZane 4 months ago
@BlackHatZane I read it when I was a teenager. I re-read it as an adult. I laugh at my youth, and easily impressionable we are at an age of individuation during socialization, which would make sense why it appealed to me and many younger audiences--but as they grew up, at least for myself with much more understanding of ontology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics, they realize how wrong Rand's simplifications are of the world. :-)
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@soyerpanzen Well, as done in Atlas Shrugged, you people who enjoy socialism, that's fine. I agree with most subjectivism, having different political views ISN'T wrong. But forcing capitalists, anarchists, libertarians, and conservatives to live by a socialist or liberal government IS wrong. So when the time arises, when there's a new place to live by my way, I will gladly leave America to fall by your hands.
BlackHatZane 3 months ago
@BlackHatZane Okidoki. Hugs and kisses. I think you don't get enough of them for you to be so rash and jump to conclusions. But, jokes aside, I hope everyone had a good Halloween Holiday. Stay warm and safe, guys.
soyerpanzen 3 months ago
@thehoffmanapprentice You take your marching orders from cartoons? It's a funny show, but that's it. I can't believe anyone actually takes it seriously, and I don't think Stone and Parker actually intend for anyone to take it seriously.
objectivistathlete 3 months ago
That's the thing about South Park, if they say something people agree with they say "yay South Park speaks the truth man." Than they something people don't like and "Oh it's just a cartoon". Matt and Tray's main purpose is to be funny, but they are also respected political commentators. Anytime something happens in the world people always want to see Matt and Trays take on it. I don't agree with about half of what they say, but I still respect them. No I don't take marching orders from anyone.
thehoffmanapprentice 3 months ago
@thehoffmanapprentice You do realize that objectivists and libertarians pretty much have the same reasoning on the economy right?
Saying they are libertarians but hating Atlas Shrugged, which would reinforce their own opinion, is odd
superlucci 3 months ago
@superlucci
That's the whole point of my comment. Matt and Trey are libertarians, so you would think they would like the book but they don't. That shows how bad it is. Also objectivism doesn't equal libertarianism. They similar economically, but many aspects of objectivist beliefs that are not shared by libertarians.
thehoffmanapprentice 3 months ago
@thehoffmanapprentice This just shows how little they care lol
Jannto 3 months ago
No matter the party, there are dumbies on all sides of the political scale.
MrDutch2009 3 months ago
As a recovered Liberal its clear you're the biggest douchebag on the block. You were a shit liberal who just wanted to get laid and fit in I bet, not actually knowing what the fuck you were talking about, just like Economics and Ayn Rand. Go look outside and see what your precious Free Market has done to our lives. Fuck anybody who likes Ayn Rand.
thekraustofski 4 months ago
@thekraustofski
Not particualry a fan of Ayn Rand. I tried reading Atlas Shrugged but got bored after 600 (!?) pages. But, it´s not like it is the free market that is behind the debt crisis. It´s all about debts that are impossible to pay. And where do they come from? From GOVERNMENT loans, from GOVERNMENT bailouts, GOVERNMENTS trying to "create jobs" and debts from healthcare-socialism in the USA. Accualy it was libertarians who warned for this first. Ayn Rand was arrogant but so are you.
Samzonish 4 months ago
@Samzonish
America doesn't have socialized healthcare, to its detriment. That's largely the reason America has among the worst healthcare standards in the entire first world.
Though one could argue that the market being unrestrained is why the government is now deep in debt. The government, for all intents and purposes, is owned by lobby groups and corporations. That's the problem. The free market is gone because the most successful capitalists weren't held in check.
ColonelPandabear 4 months ago
@ColonelPandabear
Still Obama-Care have created a debt of 821 700 000 000 this far. You don´t have "to argue" why the government is in deep debt. It isn´t harder than that you have to look at the spendings.The US government have taken a Keynsian approach the last 8 years in how to achive a better economy when the system is falling appart. To put it simple, especially under Bush and even more so under Obama the government go with the strategy of paying debts with... more debts!
Samzonish 4 months ago
@Samzonish
I don't support Obama-Care, I support a style of socialized healthcare like in Germany or Australia. Yeah, that isn't free. Luckily, there is a lot of unnecessary bloat elsewhere in the budget from which to cut.
Also, the idea of inserting capital into the economy to get it moving isn't necessarily a bad one, as you assert. The problem is in execution. They gave the bailout funds to their corporate masters (the people who actually run this country) instead of the people. (cont.)
ColonelPandabear 4 months ago
@ColonelPandabear
Naturally, that didn't work. That just made the richest one percent richer.
The one thing Obama -has- wanted to do that would help has been repeatedly rejected by Tea Party conservatives: raising taxes on the top 1%. Even with the proposed spending cuts, the budget will still be unbalanced with raising taxes on someone. Naturally, 'someone' should be the people with the majority of the capital in the country.
That used to be the middle class. It's not anymore.
ColonelPandabear 4 months ago
@ColonelPandabear
Stimulating the economy is a bad idea. I suggest you watch the documentaries "meltdown", "money as debt" and "overdose". Showing empirical examples of that it is a mistake. USA will acually be a poor nation with low standards in about 5 years. China will be the top economy and the greatest popular culture phenomenons of the world will be chinese insead of american (like the example above - South Park). The fashion, the TV-shows, the Music etc. China doesn´t stimulate but lends
Samzonish 4 months ago
@Samzonish
Unfortunately, I can't turn time forward five years to prove you wrong.
I suggest you watch 'random liberal bullshit propaganda made by Michael Moore'. Suggesting you watch propaganda bullshit is so much easier than actually forming a unique, coherent thought using my grey matter.
The above paragraph was sarcasm, by the way. I don't trust propaganda pieces on either side, and decline your invitation to dine on some.
ColonelPandabear 4 months ago
@ColonelPandabear
Michael Moore can uncover cases of corruption in things like insurance companies but he knows nothing about economy at all. I can say why the US is going down. USA have taking large loans from it´s central bank which is a quasi-private bank, Federal Reserve, since 1913. They have borrowed so much that they can´t possibly manage to pay back anything. So the Federal Reserve have lowered the interest rate from 7% to almost nothing like 0.5-0.1% to save America. (TBCont.)
Samzonish 4 months ago
@Samzonish
The point. You missed it. I was saying that you referring me to propaganda pieces doesn't interest me. Both sides make bad propaganda, and none of it interests me.
ColonelPandabear 4 months ago
@ColonelPandabear
Nah, you can go to the official government website of the central bank and look at the interest rate history. Look at random newspaper articles from whatever liberal/democratic newpaper you would read and see the sums Obama and the other "main dudes" are loaning. You can look up and read about the world wide systems of "fractional reserve lending" (even @ wikipedia), look up the official numbers of US-debt. Watch the interview with Greenspan, the congress hearing of Bernanke..
Samzonish 4 months ago
@Samzonish
I don't support the central banking system, and I don't recall saying I did. In fact, I distinctly recall saying that bailing the banks out was a bad idea.
Also, I don't read any liberal/democratic newspapers, thanks (in fact, the newspaper is going extinct, grandpa). But if this is the level of discourse that we're going to have, I have no interest in talking to you. You aren't addressing what I've said, you're copy/pasting conservative talking points.
ColonelPandabear 4 months ago
@ColonelPandabear
I meant newspaper @ the internet. And no they are not going extinct. Im not conservative. Im not copy pasting. Those things i mentioned are left out totaly from politics in the US. I just proved that it ain´t going to "be better" in the US, it just can´t. I love american pop-culture but this is facts. Consevatives don´t have the solution either so I don´t care about who wins the election, it´s already too late.
Samzonish 4 months ago
@Samzonish
Oh? Well I have to apologize, then. I'd assumed you were a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth Ron Paul supporter.
Though your assertion that China is going to be the world power after America's economic collapse falls flat because.. well, if America collapses they have no one to sell to, and they never get all that money that they're owed. It's like they hold war bonds from the southern side of the civil war. China has a vested interest in keeping America afloat for just that reason.
ColonelPandabear 4 months ago
@ColonelPandabear
I prefer Ron Paul before any other republican but no, he can´t save the US either so he´s not "the saviour" like the supporters thinks. True - if US goes down completely China won´t have their money and I don´t know what the result of that is going to be. But I personally think they lended all those sums to the US just so that america could destroy their own economy. In the end China almost doesn´t have any debts at all so they don´t need the cash back.China will still be no1
Samzonish 4 months ago
@ColonelPandabear
watch?v=-_N0Cwg5iN4
Here Mr Greenspan the Federal Reserve Chairman of the Bush-Obama years says how the US can escape default. There is nothing else to do than pay loans with loans and to print money :) The debt is up to in a month 15 000 000 000 000 and the debt per citizen is about 47 000 $. Printing money worked for Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe June 2008 the annual rate of price growth was 11.2 million percent, and their currency was almost worth nothing
Samzonish 4 months ago
@ColonelPandabear
The lowering of the interest rate is a keynsian trick to help an economy in crisis, the thing is this can´t go on forever - it is a temporary solution. The Federal Reserve have promised to keep the rate to almost nothing - which is like Giving the US money. They depend on getting money and don´t having to pay it back. The only thing left to do according to Alan Greenspan (former head chief of the national bank) is to "print money". Like Zimbabwe did. The dollar is going down.
Samzonish 4 months ago
Comment removed
Samzonish 4 months ago
Comment removed
Samzonish 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So if the healthcare isn´t socialized in the USA then a REAL socialized healthcare system would be worth (in debts) at least around 1500000000000 $. Someone will have to pay those debts back, and it´s not like the poor people wouldn´t be hurt when it is time to pay that back to the banks, private persons (the rich) and other governments. China have used the stupidity of american spending-politics and borrowed the americans large sums.
Samzonish 4 months ago
@thekraustofski I looked around for this Free Market you so hate. Couldn't find it. Just a bunch a centralized planners taking over even more control of our economic lives and laying down more moral hazards for the future.
Solverwiz 4 months ago 45
@Solverwiz
Relax it is just another side effect of the "free market" and capitalism!!!!
GDplusEng 3 months ago
@Solverwiz Good point , why are the book followers complaining anyway ? Corporations are now consider people by congress. Rand would have been proud.
MrGlobotech 2 months ago
@MrGlobotech i read antherm. spoiler the last 2 chapters is the main character ranting about how amazing he is
httm241 2 months ago
@httm241 LOL I believe it. Matt Taibbi called Atlus Shrugged a "towering monument for humanities capacity to self-pity"
FuzzyDunlop21 2 months ago
@Solverwiz Your a dumb ass and one of the mean reason are world is going to shit
UnderDog988 2 months ago
@thekraustofski Way not to sound like the biggest douchebag on the block. Saying "fuck" in every other sentence doesn't really help you.
Xtremist777 4 months ago
What I realize is that what I stated is true. Meanwhile...having the MSM to give you direct downloads does make it easier. As a RECOVERED-liberal...I still have my play book...recall the talking-points and tactics. This is just another case of 'double-standards' good...it it supports the current liberal mantra. However, intellectual honesty requires one to look beyond...and measure equally. Even if.....especially if....it will get you called racist.
candyohara 4 months ago
Yes, ladies and gentlemen... the ultra realistic world where the wealthy will just stop making any money at all if you dare to ask them to pay taxes or be subject to regulations to keep them from befouling the environment too much or abusing their workers too much. The world where the "productive class" is individually and completely responsible for their own success while those who actually do the work to make their products or perform their services are considered parasites.
Estragon17 4 months ago
Respond to this video... Oddly...when I suggested that 'high sales' of Obama's book didn't prove BRILLIANCE...I was called racist. Come on libbies...make a decision and STICK to it. It's called a CORE BELIEF.
candyohara 5 months ago
@candyohara
You DO realize that "liberals" don't all sit down together and decide on one position we will all have on things.. especially your youtube comments, right?
Estragon17 4 months ago
@captainultimo She's not. She wrote it. Unless that comment you made was a joke that flew RIGHT over my head.
magmos 5 months ago
Altas Shrugged is a piece of crap not because of the writing, but because Ayn Rand is a dumb cunt with warped ideals and a delusional world view.
theskycavedin 5 months ago
I actually shat on Ayn Rand's grave and whiped my ass with the pages of Atlas shrugged
DestructiveTruth 5 months ago
@Theliberty411 Hahahhahahahahhahahahahha you react like a 12 year old. You said "please explain", meaning "please explain what you mean SIG551P". I answered what I thought he meant. Trolling you and succeed. Didnt you get that?
NinjaFilip 5 months ago
@Theliberty411 Troll is a troll
NinjaFilip 5 months ago
Libertarianism is a weapon of the Jews.
SIG551P 5 months ago
Still better then Twilight....
kozzy18 5 months ago
This cop is an idiot.
danielduffy76 6 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Ayn Rand was simply put a cult creator in the same class as L. Ron Hubbard, 'nuff said...
And both of their literature sucked.
Skastrik 6 months ago
@Skastrik you're an idiot
777Lateralus 5 months ago
The reason that the book doesn't sit well with many people, is because they are the leaches. Who thinks they can properly run JPMorgan? How about Exxon? You complain about how these people get paid to much. Why aren't you complaining about sports athletes getting paid to much? Why aren't you complaining that American Idol surpasses the Discovery Channel and History channel in viewership. Go F-CK YOURSELF!
ishowgame 6 months ago
This sums exactly how I feel
BeardedHoplite 6 months ago
Atlas Shrugged was some of the worst writing I have seen. Seriously, Twilight was more engaging.
CrazyBluePrime 6 months ago
South Park creators are a bunch of liberals, though they got filthy rich off capitalism, kinda like Michael Moore LOL
H1TMANactual 6 months ago
@H1TMANactual
Actually, the creators of South Park are libertarians (or "south park republicans"). Just because one hates Ayn Rand, does not make him a liberal.
Also, liberalism is not anti-capitalist, socialism is.
Your logic is seriously flawed.
GodOfTheInternets 6 months ago
@H1TMANactual
South Park co-creator Trey Parker is actually a registered member of the Libertarian Party.[2] Fellow co-creator Matt Stone sums up their views with the comment "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."[3]
GodOfTheInternets 6 months ago
the parallels between the US gov't in atlas shrugged and the current administration are stunning. In South Park, Barbrady is an idiot so of course he wouldn't like the book or understand it.
amcent2 6 months ago
I see that all the PAID right wing nutcases are out in full force in the comments. Real amusing to read.
WorldPeace4All6 6 months ago
insert deep political quote here
ThePidgeottosNest 7 months ago
Doesn't surprise me that the lowbrow hacks that make South Park are objectivists. And they are condemning Mormonism and Scientology? Maybe you South Park Republicans and self described "libertarians" should look in the mirror the next time you condemn a cult seeing how you shill for that fraud Ayn Rand. L. Ron Hubbard has nothing on Ayn Rand when it comes to unthinking followers.
perdondaris 7 months ago
Death to the Looters.
Objectivist1994 7 months ago