‘Atlas Shrugged: Part 1′ Review: A Timely Must-See
by Jenny EriksonIt has been said that there is nothing new under the sun. From fashion to societal morality, history keeps on repeating itself. Who ever thought skinny jeans would come back in style? What’s next, stirrup pants and scrunchies?
Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is an excellent reminder of the dangers of socialism in our current age of entitlement. The parallels between the story and our current political and cultural state are uncanny and more than a little bit unsettling. As a witness to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, author Ayn Rand was well aware of the tragedies of statism, and her most famous work of literature depicts what happens when the wealth is spread around in the name of fairness.
—–
The movie adaptation of Atlas Shrugged remains faithful to Rand’s themes of capitalism and the evils of collectivism. One major change from the pages to the screen was the decision to change the setting from a future fictional country to America in 2016. It was a good decision, in this writer’s opinion, as it illustrates the slippery slope of socialism our nation is teetering on.
It opens with America in decline. Fuel prices are through the roof, making air travel impossibly unaffordable and bringing back trains as the major mode of transportation for people and goods. Airplanes and buildings are in disrepair, businesses shut down, and successful citizens disappear after being sought out by a shadowy character calling himself John Galt.
Taylor Schilling does a beautiful job portraying heroine Dagny Taggart, who fights tooth and nail against her annoying brother James (Mathew Marsden) and his political cronies in Washington to make Taggart Transcontinental a success. Poised, polished, and with an iron will, Dagny partners with Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler), an entrepreneur who has invented a new metal that is lighter, cheaper, and stronger than steel. Together, they battle oppressive government restrictions and sanctions to rebuild the Rio Norte line in Colorado. The Centennial state is one of the last prosperous states in the nation, thanks in large part to oil tycoon Ellis Wyatt (Graham Beckel). Once the newly christened John Galt line is completed, Wyatt will have a safe way to transport his product to consumers. That is real job creation.
Dagny and Rearden hit roadblock after roadblock in their quest to build the John Galt line, but their determination to make a thing and see it work pushes them forward. Harry Reid-like politicians do all they can to destroy the business partners, while maintaining a public face of empathy and equality. They apply new taxes to steel mills, make it illegal to own more than one enterprise, and even get a government committee to testify that Rearden metal is untested and unsafe.
In a scene that could have included former SEIU president Andy Stern, Dagny is warned that she cannot force the union members to work on her ‘dangerous’ train. Her response shows the grit required for business success: “You can do whatever you want with your men … but that train will run if I have to drive the damn thing myself.”
Bravo to The Strike Productions for tackling this ambitious project and producing a wonderful film. Add it to your must-see list – it is definitely worth the price of a ticket.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
106 Comments
I can't wait to take the whole family, even my 6 year old. She knows something is up from listening to her mom and dad and doesn't like O-rock-a-bama either.
I wish they had set it back in the day instead of modern times.
I saw a poster the other day. At first I thought it was graffiti. "Who is John Galt?" was scribbled. I got goosebumps. Can't wait.
We need to make sure that we all go see this, with our families. We need to make sure all of our neighbors see this. We need to be writing our own reviews, and sending them in to our local papers. We need to make sure our voice is heard through this movie by all the people still currently asleep!
I've been waiting for this movie since I read the book in 1978 in college.
As a capitalist who spent years in a left wing industry in a left wing state, and then went Galt with the rise of Barry O, I cant express how thrilled I am to finally see this made into a movie. It couldn't come at a more perfect time — who would have thought 30 years ago how well Ayn Rand could see the way statism would unfold in the USA or how fast the country would go into decline with our own Mr. Thompson in office — and I'm hopeful it will play an impactful role sending an important message to the world, and to the legions who never could, or can't, make their way through the book.
I'm looking forward to this film.
It's success in rendering the book's message onto celluloid will be directly proportional to the screams and shrieks of indignation that arise sulfurously and explosively from the usual suspects on the left and in the MSM.
If it does achieve what I hope it will, it will be a seminal point in turning Hollywood's fellow travelers' own tactics against their insidious campaign to undermine the values that have made this country great.
The irony of their probable incessant criticism of using film to convey a conservative message will be delicious and hilarious.
If well done, I'll be digging through the garage so my daughter can read her mother's collection of Rand from High School. It will be interesting to see how Rand-thought mixes with "What Not to Wear" fashion tv programming in her noggin.
"What’s next, stirrup pants and scrunchies? "
Don't SAY that! You'll give some designer an idea!
Thanks for the review. We are going. Did they leave out the tedious power sex?
An important movie, at a precarious time for America, I can’t wait. This could be a great primer as we prepare for 2012, and to fix the mistake of ’08 (Barry must go!)
I sure hope so also. Not only tedious but distracting. That is the element of the book that liberals always focus on to divert attention from the philosophy behind the story. If you read this book for its message it's amazingly powerful. If you read it like a tawdry pulp fiction, the message is denigrated as "its just fiction."
After the first one or two, I barely skimmed them to see if they had any story threads I needed. It was distasteful to me, and I think that was part of the point. Was she trying to show the change of attitude toward sex and how power played in? It could have been done better. Love Rand's work, but she did have some odd ideas (to my thinkin') here and there.
I'm glad this reviewer liked the movie, but her piece tells me nothing of what I want to know about this film. Most people reading this site probably don't need to know the plot, we need to know details about how well the producers translated the story to the screen. Was the production value as good throughout as it appeared in the trailer? Did Rand's language work on screen, or was it altered? That kind of thing. Hopefully BH has more reviews in the pipeline—esp. from John Nolte himself.
the codependant abusive completely unromantic relationships are really a drawback to this book.
(more evidence that she really could have used an editor)
I'm sure the movie will not spend the time on this aspect
I believe she was projecting her own rather active libido into the character. But also trying to demonstrate a completely independent liberated woman. It worked to a certain extent, but still, too distracting.
I want to see it badly, but I can't seem to find out whether it will be shown in my city. I read the book a year or so ago and loved it. It's a tough read and it's not for everyone, but the theme is universal. The overarching melody of greed and lazy entitlement in the story is especially poignant for a driven crafts-person like myself who has been out of work for almost a year. There are times when I feel like Dagny, trying desperately to further my dreams and succeed, only to be tripped up by the selfish. The only peeve I have with what I've seen so far is the production design of some elements. I'm a graphic artist and I feel like some of the design work doesn't do the story justice.
Just went to the web site for the movie and the poster has a Atlas holding up a golden Obama symbol. The Big "O". Subtle. But I like it!
I read in another review that Ayn Rand once said that Atlas Shrugged was set "the day after tomorrow". In other words, always in the near future.
I am a fan of Atlas Shrugged, but can't help feeling that I just watched a portion of a very poorly paced, underfunded made for TV movie.
Maybe that is just the consequence of adapting a much loved book, but if I recall that scene correctly Henry demonstrated his disgust for the leaches in his life, with more than a wry smile, chuckle and "You've got to be kidding me." They were keenly aware that Henry did not like them and only tolerated them out of duty. I didn't feel that from the clip.
I will likely go see the movie, just to show support for the philosophy of a book I enjoyed. But the clips I have seen thus far do not seem to be up to snuff. I hope I am wrong….
Those of us who reject this Randian nonsense aren't asleep. We just know it's bull.
Active libido? This was written by a woman with and active libido? Odd.
It was simply overkill, to me. The editing style is not very crisp.
Placing it in a modern context is good. The sheeple aren't very good at abstract thinking, so it needs to be as clear as possible. A great, if frustrating scene.
Yes, the sex in the book was irritating and distracted. It was obvious Ayn wanted to lay Reardon.
It looked like distain from a polite person to me.
I CAN'T WAIT!!!! YAYZ!!!
I will go to see the movie.
Will be interesting to see how it matches what I was imagining when reading the book. Whenever you see a movie based on a book you've read, there are always the "that's not how it was in the book" moments.
Whatever flaws Rand had as a writer are over-shadowed by how well the book envisioned what is happening now.
http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/
I'm a huge fan of AS, too. Yep, I think the pace is not going to be what we've become accustomed to. Plus, as a philosophical work, it's important to let the small actions "sink in." After all, it's the millions of small actions–the acceptance of leech-ism, the acceptance of unearned guilt, etc.–which have allowed the looters to destroy everything around them. The looters don't take and destroy with guns and bombs, though they have those; they destroy from within. So, no, it's not going to be a Yippee-ki-ay "Die Hard" kind of film. And I have to remind myself of that, as well!
Barry et al will no doubt spin the story as a pro-Obamadministration film about trains. And infrastructure.
There are also those of us who don't want ot make it all the way through, and, in fact, find the whole preposterous. We'd prefer to read something more grounded, based on how people really are, not some pie-in-the-sky capitalist daydream, where all these capitalists are engaged in "enlightened self-interest" instead of what they really are, antisocial rapacious profiteers. Rand is the worst example of her own ideas, because what she became was the result of the collectivism she despises so much. She was mollycoddled by the socialist system, given a fine education. She didn't really do anything that remarkable except write this tome that people like you see as the tablets from Mount Sinai.
Don't get your hopes up. The movie won't make any difference. It won't convert people to capitalism anymore than Mel Gibson's The Passion converted people to Christianity. It'll satisfy people like you, who prefer your gross generalizations to reality. And you'll go out, with your families in tow, like you're seeing some Disney film — and in a way, you are — hoping to influence your kids; and you'll cling to it in the same partisan determination with which you embraced Gibson's movie, because to you this is all about "the message." This movie could be the suckiest movie of the decade, but you'll buy it on Blu-ray and swear it's the best thing since Lawrence of Arabia.
This is going to be fun to watch. I can't wait to see your reaction to the receipts, how you'll blame it on the big liberal media conspiracy. Of course, fanatical conservative groups could do like the churches did, and buy up loads of tickets and distribute them as gifts. That might work.
Who are you blaming for being out of work?
It is underfunded, because it was a rushed production. What happened was, there was a deadline. A movie had to be started by a certain date, or the rights-holder would lose possession of them. That's why it's in two parts: they met their deadline. With any luck,perhaps they'll start the whole project over, now that the rights are secure, with a better production design and so on. These underfunded message movies tend to be a bit ham-fisted.
And, philosophically speaking, it illustrates Rearden's role as "Atlas"–accepting the guilt and the burdens of a family and a society that loathes what he does and who he is.
Are you a left wing propaganda profiteer? Because that is all the left has to offer, the selling of useless and unworkable ideas. No one thinks you’re asleep, people simply think you’re a hypocrite nihilist who needs the approval of others to feel valid. Go sell your socialism fellow profiteer.
Very active, apparently. Agreed. Overkill and not well edited. And nearly impossible to put on film. We shall see if it works.
Somewhere in your babble we might find a cogent thought, and perhaps even a clear mind. But I'm not going to bet anything of real value on it.
Perhaps you should clarify who 'people like me' are? Seems like you're projecting a lot and inserting all the standard leftist propaganda into your remark.
The movie doesn't have to convert socialists into capitalists and it won't. No need. Capitalists already outnumber socialists. Without capitalists, socialists have no one to loot.
"Seems like you're projecting a lot and inserting all the standard leftist propaganda into your remark."
It's like Colbert says, "Reality has a liberal bias." A very funny line, really, but so true.
It's true only to a liberal. If it were true, liberal policies and socialism would work in the real world. Never have, never will.
You can have the last word. I have to go back to work to pay taxes so they can be redistributed as handouts to someone who didn't earn it.
I prefer Robin Williams,"reality, what a concept" . Which fundamentally means humans can screw up a one car funeral, a collective just increases the odds.
Do you actually think that Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore trash their own people for nothing? They are profiteers of a useless and moronic philosophy. Socialism is a commodity bought and sold by charlatans and hypocrites at Universities everywhere. You are but a useful tool.
Socialism does work in the real world. If Ayn Rand were alive, you'd be able to ask her, since she got her free education thinks to it. Not only that, it's working all over the rest of the civilized world. Now, I know at this point, you'll cite this or that, but we're living in a capitalist society and it's beset with all sort of problems, all of them the consequence of capitalism. You can't have a system that seeks ever-increasing profits — not just simple profits, but constantly increasing profits — every quarter without it eventually having an eat-its-own consequence. That's where we are today. Nobody in their right mind would think Rand's world works. It never has and it never will.
At this rate we will have seen the whole movie in the form of trailers by the time it is relased straight to video next month.
Okay, your 6 year old sounds like my 6 year old – although she hasn't expressed any like or dislike of the President, she pronounces his name the same way! LOL!
Oh, yes, it's working well in Greece and other countries in Europe who have all had to discuss and implement "austerity measures" because they are running out of other people's money, as is typical with statism.
Someone should explain that the "Los Angeles area" is NOT Orange County and for many people in the "Los Angeles area", Orange County can be a 2 to 3 hour drive away and with gas prices the way they are, it makes it very hard to get there.
I can understand a limited release at first as this is a very specific kind of movie.
But seriously, if they could actually put it IN the Los Angeles area, I might be able to go.
Evidently it's working as well as capitalism here. Turn on the news. Get an earful.
We have "crony capitalism" here, skippy. It's not capitalism to force banks to give home loans to people who can't afford them. Nor is it capitalism to pay workers above market price for their services which then kills the company they work for. Nor is it capitalism to "bail out" private companies. In capitalism, you just fail, your stuff gets sold off and somebody better comes along and takes up your market share.
It's not capitalism when the gov't is in the business of choosing winners and losers, banning certain kinds of light bulbs, etc. We haven't had real capitalism in this country for a long time.
That's the problem, skippy.
Why don't you do something other than listen to CNN and MSNBC and PBS. Use your brain, if God in fact gave you one.
Ironic that there is still money to be made with DVD sales and streaming video.
"We'd prefer to read something more grounded, based on how people really are, not some pie-in-the-sky capitalist daydream, where all these
capitalistssocialists are engaged in "enlightened self-interest" instead of what they really are, antisocial rapacious profiteers."There fixed it.
Really, you think Utopia is attainable through the mechanisms of Man? Which Man? For how long? Who gets to be next?
Youre just p*ssing in the wind, honey. Only one getting sprayed by your drivel is you. Go clean yourself up.
"change the setting from a future fictional country to America in 2016"
Are you sure it was fictional? That's not how I remember it.
Ain't you the cutest thing?
Who the hell said anything about Utopia? Just because I see the fault of one system doesn't mean I don't see a problem for another. But every society should have a minimum standard. In America, we consider owning a home part of the "American dream." Well, when owning a place to live is an effing dream, you know you're in the United States of America, because no other civilized country would consider that a "dream" but one of the basic advantages of living in a society.
A new standard for ordering society has already been established successfully. It's been established for over a hundred years in some places. There's no turning back. All that's left for the United States to do is dig in and keep insisting that plutocracy works. The rest of the world is bemused by it.
More money to be made in creating decent content.
Jesus, Alric, I see you're still dumber than a box of Alrics. The economy is largely f*ck*d because of the damage the CRA, Freddie, and Fannie have done. The losing derivatives that had to be packaged to dump these loser loans didn't help.
"Socialism does work in the real world." Actually, no, it doesn't. STFU, Dumbass.
Trying to set a record for stupid, today, Alric?
You and I must have watched two different clips. The pathos of that scene is firmly intact. The bracelet represents the sum of Rearden's life, of his true self, and his wife ridicules it.
A novel can tell us what's in the character's head. A film has to show us, and it often has to be done over several scenes.
Have patience and go see the whole movie when it's release. Personally, I can't wait for the scene where Dagny takes the bracelet…I hope that's in part one.
I think Roger and Kevin basically covered it. Especially Kevin. Your head is so far up your @ss, that no possible surgery could fix it.
I'll give Alric _IV some props; Rand's objectivist brand of capitalism, running close to a sort of "pure" capitalism definition, would indeed be a disaster of greed run rampant. Thank goodness we don't have it here and never have (and it's never existed in a "pure" form anywhere, again, thank goodness). The capitalism we have is tempered by democracy and laws and citizen attitudes informed by the Judeo-Christian ethic among other attributes of Western Civilization. Rand was a rabid atheist, believing Christianity was a religion for weaklings and suckers. But she was, as you all know, a rabid anti-collectivist (statist) too, believing that that was for weaklings and suckers too and was systematically tyrannical to boot. I think statism was what she was lashing out at the most; she'd lived under it and saw what it did to people (she wouldn't use this word but it rots their souls). Unfortunately, she had no foundational knowledge, until she came to the US, of what it takes to have a system that harnesses our (often greedy) self interests in a way that doesn't create a society red in tooth and claw. What is necessary is an underlying belief system that leashes the darker angels that can emerge under freedom and competition. Read George Washington's Farewell Address if you want to know how important he thought religious belief was to keeping America free (hint: it's foundational). The notion of just how foundational struck me when traveling in still very Communist China in the late 80's. The Chinese struck me as potentially ruthless capitalists because they had very little empathy for anyone outside of their clan; they'd give an arm and leg for kin, but screw all others. (I still remember when I was there of the story of the dumpling cook in a little alley of Beijing who offed his competition and put him in the dumplings!) See, they didn't have any "love your neighbor as yourself" training. In fact, the Communists had drummed it out of them, attempting to replace universal love for neighbor with love only for fellow "Comrades." (and that didn't work anyway). We're seeing a capitalist China without an foundational empathetic moral system emerge right now (Communist comradeship is waning). Hold onto your seats! Also, have you ever wondered why there are never any children in Fountain Head or Atlas Shrugged? Have you ever wondered how Rourke and Galt became such supermen? What did their parents teach them? Who were they? What will they teach their children? Rand, childless, could entertain "utopian" ideas of "I don't owe you anything" supermen. Put kids into the picture and everything changes. I read both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged a few times back in the day and enjoyed them immensely (e? can never remember), but I came to see the flaws in her outlook some of which I've discussed above. One piece I still hold from her works is the notion that it's never too late to change your course; even if you have to start from the bottom, that's better than being on the top going in the wrong way (I think that came from a Galt radio address). That all said, I'll go see the movie with interest. Although I'm not a Randian I can appreciate pointed messages about parts of our nature and our struggles to govern ourselves. I am thankful, though, through my faith, that I don't have to rely upon myself for my goodness. I know too well what darkness lurks within. Without such a humility I could see myself, in positions such as Rand's heroes, become an uber, super tyrant.
Sure, socialism works in the real world. Just not in the way it's proponents claim.
After all, 2 million slaughtered Cambodians can't be wrong.
Nor, for that matter, can 50+ million dead Russians. Or 75+ million Chinese. Or 1.5 million dead Vietnamese. Or…
Well, you get the idea. Socialism works very well. It works very well indeed. Unless you happen to want to live.
Of course you'd be willing to believe that. Sure you would. But they didn't cover it. They spouted the same old line. Repeating it over doesn't make it true. I made my point. The main question is, why did these people default all at the same time? Whatever caused that is what the problem really was. You just simply ignored what I said abut those same people having to pay rent, before they bought those homes, and even after. Of course you'll believe that these unqualified people were moved into mansions, but that's not true. The whole thing was about people losing jobs, or their wages falling.
That was a good one. And you're probably just about right. Of course, they'll blame that one the big liberal media conspiracy.
They're a special bunch, aren't they? Here's a link I always like to give them when they argue for their particular totalitarian B.S., essentially what you posted above: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
I know what you're trying to say, but our capitalism isn't tempered by Christianity or democracy. Money has bought the entire system up. There is no such thing as pure capitalism. Capitalism is what it is, and it evolved from the mercantile class and there was no meeting in which people set down and cobbled together principles on how it should work. Nor is it something that sprung out of nature, following a set of natural laws. It is what it is, an enterprise in which people make money. What we practice is the product of capitalism exercised with unfettered glee, and we're currently living in the consequences of it. It has always created homelessness and antisocial instability for a segment of our society, and even Alan Greenspan (one of Rand's darling objectivists; he sat in awe of her, literally) while running the fed insured that there was at least 6% unemployment (that's the ideal amount) to control inflation. I'll leave you to contemplate what that really means; on a moral level.
And this idea the people who wish to order society around a more just social model aren't weak: they're moral. I find Rand's hypocrisy disgusting. She extols pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps, but she herself was the product of a collectivist society. She's like one of those rich salesmen you see on infomercials, getting rich selling courses on how to get rich It's a kind of tautological entrepreneurialism.
It finally came to a head, Moron. The bubble had been building for generations–it wasn't at all something solely attributable to Bush, you know, the one you dumbass Leftards like to portray incessantly as an economic moron while giving the dumbest president we've ever had a pass on as many things as you can to defect attention away from your worthless revolution.
Bush tried about a dozen or so times to draw attention to the building bubble but the Commie Liars' Club continually blew him off, telling him there was not problem. Raines, Frank, and Waters should all be tried for treason, found guilty, and hung.
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white...
You can cite all the right-wing links you want, you mouth-breathing wingnut, but the bubble was the product of upper-middle-class do-nothings with too much money, getting into real estate so they can live rich. Houses were purchased solely for the purpose of turning them over, until eventually they were so overpriced, they ended up passing these houses back and forth between themselves. I was watching these infomercials all over the place, with testimonials about how they made a fortune in a short time, and these commercials dominated late-night television.
The program for home ownership wasn't the problem, because those people were buying houses to live in.
You believed those infomercials? Moron.
"The program for home ownership wasn't the problem, because those people were buying houses to live in."
Living in the houses made the occupants of those houses more likely to keep up payments they couldn't afford in the first place? Alrighty then. Moron.
I read a couple accounts that said as many as five million illegals had government (you and me, Moron)-backed loans. How likely is it those people are going to worry about whether or not they keep up the payments when they know they may be deported at any time, not that they have anything to worry about with the commie prez we have now doing something like that. Moron.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag...
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001610.ht...
Again, Kevin has covered it. But one other thing, many houses went into foreclosure at the same time (and the foreclosures are still coming) because of the ARMs these people took out in order to afford the house AT FIRST. But when the rate changed, well, they couldn't do it.
Plus there was the bubble that created by all this. I will say one thing – the bubble is a combo of too many people given loans for homes they could not otherwise afford and who were otherwise risky borrowers, and the "investors" who were flipping houses.
It's the same with college loans – tuition skyrocketed when the federal gov't started subsidizing and giving loans. With houses, it's lots of loans being given, guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, and so more houses are built, bigger and bigger, more and more expensive because it would appear that the risk of spread out to someone else.
Except it wasn't.
You are a Grade AAAA moron.
No, you mouth-breathing nincompoop, I did not believe the commercials. You're an idiot.
But the problem was, only the poorest people were victimized by the subprime loans. People were losing their houses who had nothing to do with that program. And nobody makes home builders keep raising prices because money is available. It defeats the purpose of the program. You're looking at the wrong end of the problem, you troglodyte. The problem wasn't the people buying the house, or how they bought them.
Why even have an ARM? That should never have been allowed. This program was abused by the people administering it, the banks and the profiteers. The people could afford those houses, if the pricing was fair and the loan was fair, because those same people have to afford rent.
And you're still overlooking the reality that many houses weren't even purchased under this program. Most weren't. There are 300 million people in the United States. Bush's TARP was, like — what? — $700 billion? If the housing problem was the key factor, that's an awful lot of money to fix it. That's over $2 billion for every person in the United States.
What's happened is, because this crisis was caused by good old-fashioned capitalism. Now, because that capitalism had failed so thoroughly, due to its lack of regulation and oversight, those anti-government types such as yourself have circled the wagons, and scratched and clawed to find find a way to blame liberals. Sorry, it doesn't add up, Skidmark.
You do get an AAA for effort.
Ooh! I just love Dagny's line when she takes it…
Read the Federalist Papers you ignorant piece of trash. Socialism FAILS because every bit of it is faulty, where our Constitutional Republic is the best damn thing there is on this planet. Has been for 230+ years. But I can tell right now youre too much of a coward to actually study American history and govenment. You'd rather pound away at the keyboard in your little basement while mooching off your mother and wanking off to pictures of Chrissy Matthews getting tingly over the Won. The rest of the world is falling under the barbaric system of Islamofascism and you want us to just flop over to fulfill your vaporous and vapid ideals of collectivism? Your wet dreams of a "plutocracy" are just that: dreams, something you wax yourself to sleep with.
The book wasn't a big seller in its first 4.2 seconds on the market. Good thing readers didn't listen to dolts like you. Oh, BTW, the book hasn't stopped selling big since its publication 55 YEARS ago.
Same will happen with the movie. It'll get viewed by millions, no matter what dolts like you say.
I think that bears repeating, Kevin – thanks for the link *copying and pasting elsewhere*
Read this and tell me again that socialism/communism "works" f*^kwit
From Kevin Stowell – "Here's a link I always like to give them when they argue for their particular totalitarian B.S., essentially what you posted above: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
If youre going to write long dissertations of stupidity, you should back it up with actual data. Youre just talking out of your rear end. I saw PLENTY of people get loans they should never have gotten. They lost their homes because they stupidly believed that they could take on a loan they'd never be able to pay off. One example was the gutter trash that moved into the house next to ours in a very new and very nice neighborhood. They treated it like the barrio trailer park they had come from. You know why? Because the gummamint allowed them to have a loan that the drunken bastards could never pay. The police eventually had to escort their asses off the premises when they defied the order to vacate a foreclosed home.
You obviously have never owned a home of your own. Typical leftard. So used to your mama just showing up with your plate of cheese fries and cola and slinking away when you scream at her to leave you alone.
If Part I makes lots of cash, then Parts II and III will likely have more expensive production. That said, I think we're all pretty spoiled by modern movie techniques–so much so that characters and plot are well overlooked. This film will be all about characters and plot, and that's more than fine with me. I'd rather it be that way than a flashy ILM version.
Aww youre just saying that cuz Mama had the brazen audacity to come downstairs to your dark basement, catch you with your pants pooled at the feet of your chair, and remind you to go look for a real job in the Real World. You may think you understand the real world, but the majority of conservatives actually DO get up from their computers and go out and work for a salary, pay the bills, deal with the issues, take responsibility for their actions and make the world work. You, however, still troll the vapid HuffPo pages and pretend you know everything there is to know about being an Adult in America. Dont be mad…just step away from the fumes of your own gas. That's the first thing one does on the road to Reality.
Why, look at you, your dirty-faced, turd-snacking, mud-dwelling mongrel, all in an outrage. Four rants, one after the other and not a one of them with a lick of sense. I swear, I think you're about to burst blood vessels in your temples.
Alright, I gave you the attention you needed. So get back to eating your turds while they're still warm. And the next time you decide to take your finger out of your butt and two-finger type something else, draw in a few deep breaths, you dumb mutha-effer. That was some funny stuff.
Funny that you quote a creepy idiot like Colbert. His "in character" scene at Congress was the most cringe-ful, embarrassing train wreck ever seen in comedy. His audience is just a bunch of cranked-up basement-dwelling morons.
I'd pit his audience against those mud-dwelling bog people who watch Fox News and depend on this site to tell them who to hate or love next.
Oh, God. Here we go with that argument again.
Dagnabit Alric_IV,
I was just about to commend you on your relative reluctance in using ad hominem in comparison with others on this blog when you go "turd" on me! I may disagree heartily with what seems to be your belief in the the merits of European socialism but I respect your kahones in saying, "but." And you fellow conservative responders, what's with your over the top ad hominem? You think that's going to win any one over to the truth? Don't let your passion get the best of you and turn you into a boor.
Socialism does work in the real world. If Ayn Rand were alive, you'd be able to ask her, since she got her free education thinks to it.
—————
Rand witnessed the violence of the Russian revolution, and her family almost starved because her father's pharmacy was nationalized. I doubt very much that she would agree with any type of collective society. You're the one talking in hypotheticals: What would Rand think? What would Rand say?
Her Objectivism is her realized philosophy, which is the basis of all her books. The point of her philosophy, or anybody's philosophy, is to apply it to real situations even in the future.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=o...
http://www.atlassociety.org/objectivist_politics
Rand finished high school and university in Russia. Then, she moved to the US and worked very hard. Where's the socialism after she left Russia? Hard for you to believe, but Rand lived her life exactly as she wanted–as an Objectivist who believed in laissez-faire capitalism and who believed in man as a heroic figure.
You're a typical collectivist. Since Rand was educated in Russia, she needs to be forever beholden to the government. Nevermind that her family had to flee their home because of the violence of the Revolution. Nevermind that her family almost starved. Nevermind that her family's livelihood, i.e., wealth, was taken by the government.
I could have sworn that "turd-snacking" was the bailiwick of you and your idiotic ilk.
I'm pleased that you noticed my references to European — and democratic – socialism, while these poor slobs keep referencing totalitarianism. They're taking a disingenuous tack, ignoring the facts and referencing something that has nothing to do with socialism itself. The horrors of the Soviet Union or China or Nazism was the result of totalitarianism, not socialism. You'd think that educated people could figure that out, with socialism so prevalent in all of the other civilized societies.
As for my sudden vicious name-calling, that one particular guy was very riled up, and I sort of enjoy that, seeing a person sputtering on his own limitations. It's almost like a cartoon; like Yosemite Sam, maybe,
Got all that right, Krystyna.
You're quite welcome, gt.
Quit being stupid and we quit arguing.
"mud-dwelling bog people"
I thought that was terminology the Left reserved for describing Blacks. You jackasses can't even keep track of your own hypocrisy and racist statements–pitiful.
You are so correct Kev.
Painfully correct.
But HuskersLoveAlric is a waste of protoplasm. I'm certain his parents regret their former pro-life stance ased on his contribution to society…
Save your efforts for a worthy opponent sir.
You're at it rather early, D. 1634 hrs here.
He can't
0642 here in VA. I'm always an early riser. 0530 every day except when it is earlier.
This dufus #4 is beyond whack. You are wasting your breath, he wants to have WhoGo's Lovechild… Or maybe he is an illegitimate offspring of Kim Jung Ill…
I never expect to get through to Alric but his being so deserving of abuse obligates me to, well, abuse him.
)
His cluelessness is closely approaching the density of unobtainium…
I'm afeard there ain't no help for his terminal cluelessness…
Sorosstan only hired him due to EEO, Hire the handicapped doncha know…
Ah! Playing the race card! Bravo!
Too late. Lame try though.
You remind me of a poem I read years ago. The line was something like "Frustration has arms that are just slightly too short of long enough." Something like that.
Yeah, it really sucks when reality contradicts the very premise of your position, doesn't it?
Now, of course, you're going to rationalize away why each of those wasn't "really" socialism, so they don't really count. And then you'll take the position that "real" socialism hasn't ever been tried.
And then when it's pointed out that, even though neither real socialism nor real laissez-faire capitalism have never been tried, the closer you get to real socialism always ends up in stagnation and mass graves, and the closer you get to real capitalism always ends up in explosive growth and prosperity for even the poorest, you'll start bloviating and name calling and doing anything you can to change the subject or at least evade the millions of corpses that socialism has led to.
Why yes, yes I *have* had this argument before. And the folk on your side of it always prove to be either thugs or witlings.
They can't win on the merits, so they must work like the devil to invalidate everyone who disagrees with them, by any means possible.
Tolerance, open-mindedness and civility! Our betters in action!
You know, I've seen your silly arguments, and you miss that the fact that much of Europe is socialistic, and there are no mass graves are thugs or all that other nonsense. And the closer you get to real capitalism, the more people become enslaved, because capitalism has no social obligation, of any kind. People can get rich by exploiting needs, not meeting them. For instance, when there are too many green beans and it threatens to lower the price, capitalists will burn enough of the harvest to keep the price up.
So, you moron, argue all you want. You're exchanging totalitarianism for socialism to protect your troglodyte ideology. You ignore the facts. There is no perfect capitalism. There is only a lack of socialism, and that's all the capitalism is: it's a means of people to make money, and it has no obligation other than that, no obligation to the society or the labor force that made it possible. Capitalism can never go wrong because it has no true objective other than profit. All profit is good, period. How it comes about is never an issue.
You must be logged in to post a comment.