If You Could Ask Ayn Rand One Question....
If you had the opportunity to ask Ayn Rand any one question, what would it be?
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
It is a sad commentary on men if you feel that the only way a man can have a romantic relationship with a woman is if she is clearly his inferior. It is astonishing that such a strong voice as Rand's should adopt this attitude.
Jan has very much found her way and is quite comfortable with who she is. She does not feel the need for others to be small for her to be large.
I can only attribute her narrow view of women in power to reflecting Victorian sensibilities. This is certainly a 'human fallibility' that I am quite capable of overlooking - but I would want to ask her about it, if I had the chance.
Other than that, I think the allosaur has the right of it: try to squeeze her brilliant brain about 'how you would make a Gulch in today's visible world'.
Jan
I wonder if Ayn Rand ever met Margaret Thatcher?
My Dad's generation engaged in winning WWII and are due all the respect that it requires.
Are women not capable of rational behavior even under stress of the monthlies? You can argue that point. I know how difficult it is having been the recipient of wierd on schedule behaviour
I'm thinking some examples of your samples might be simpler for those of us who are awaiting for something besides personal opinion.
Remember the FemNazi movement proved their worth during the Clinton era. and destroyed the viability and the credibility of the WomanMovement. Since then relegated do just another minor role in later years supporting the Bimbo Brigades.
Most don't even remember that term unless they listen to Limbaugh nor is it relevant.
What he wants to do according to his own statements is against the law but not against the Law Of Obama. It is his stated desire to make the DHS equal to or greater than in power and strength than the military. Why?
The military swear it's oath of allegiance only to the Constitution nothing else. But if he can get them to violate that oath once he changes the parameters and redefines everything.
Same as Cruz running for the Presidency. There is conjecture and some support for Cruz but the law has never been changed from it' s context of the times written definition. If it were different then I could run for President but it isn't and I was born of US parentage in another country. Ihad truly changed that part would be the subject of an amendment. It wasn't and therefore the context of the time definition stands.
Change would require a constitutional amendment or a SCOTUS decision and one not contested by Congress. Same thing with suborning the military. No difference.
The military were given a certain stated requirement as as part of their oath of office. As were all federal officials elected or hired. 'support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Changing the meanings by ignoring them is the act of a domestic enemy. No problem if it was filed as an amendment or as a case before the supreme court. Big problem when it's the individual edict of some lower level judge or the President.
So it's a test of will and a test of morals standards and values. All the military has to do is say. We're not allowed to do that and quote the law ....unless the law is legally changed. It's not a strike for they are still up holding their oath of office.
They are not allowed to decide anything except one thing. Is the Constitution in danger. And then they are given an obligation to protect the constitution.
I happen to believe the country is worth the effort nor are the citizens. the Constitution however is worth defending. Those that try to weasel snake their way around it are Enemies Domestic.
I have not changed my evaluation of country nor citizens but it changes nothing. The country and the citizens as a group were and are not worth defending. They gave up that privilege. The Constitution is worth defending. We who took the oath without mental reservation retain that privilege.
The military is in a unique position of being left, by the constitution to decide for themselves and if they do decide it is a legal counter revolution. legal, authorized, and required. Their duty, responsibility and their job. It is a hard hard decision for any soldier to make, especially when we are taught and learned to live a life of almost unquestioned obedience. Key word is 'almost' The careerists poor example made sure of that.
Will the uphold that oath? One answer is doesn't matter. I will. The other answer is...
50 50 they will or they won't.
The majority that won't uphold it are found at the top of pecking order. By royal appointment. but when they retire having not upheld their oath they are liable. The Congress has, not doubt exempted itself. Legally. Who knows?
Now Obama can threaten even declare martial law and then demand the obedience of the second part of the oath. The military is relieved of zero responsibility for their action or dereliction of duty regardless of the order given.
It's a hard job but someone has to do it. They are after all the last line of defense.
Either way it would mean martial law. The difference is one group will return you to the Constitutional Rule like it or not. The other will rewrite the oath of office and the Constitution to one of their own liking.
Damn.. speaking of responsibility How are you going to vote?
If you do not make a worthy reply, I will cease to respond to your comments.
Jan
into a war for the future. . using government force is the move
which amounts to initiating civil war. -- j
.
As for Rand she went into that in great detail but you have to read. and then reason and then take your bit of newly won knowledge elsewhere.
Freedom of Speech, Assembly, religion and the press is also freedom from speech, assembly, religion and the press.
Wnston give me a valid, proven reason why you are pro-whatever. Finish with mathematical proofs.
Quite the opposite: I object to Ayn Rand's worldview that the only possible relationship between a man and a woman is that the woman must look up to a man as her superior (not as her friend) and that if the woman herself has a large amount of power then she 'cannot find a man'.
Here is more of what Ayn Rand said on that topic:
"...the higher [a woman’s] view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother - or leader.
Now consider the meaning of the presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the president is the highest authority; he is the “chief executive,” the “commander-in-chief.” ...In the performance of his duties, a president does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work, and their responsibilities).
This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. ... To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values - a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would beome the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch."
That is a spectacularly twisted view of male-female relationships. While I admire most of Ayn Rand's work, her definition of a 'properly feminine woman' is boggling to my mind. The limits she sets on relationships demean both men and women...and are not accurate. We live in a later era and have examples all around us of various successful permutations of relationships of all sorts.
Jan
or an essay at least. . And, sometimes, learning something new
from a friend." . just thinkin' -- j
.
I'm not going to be one of a "few good men" who do nothing about evil either.
Okay, a few good ladies too. I was thinking about a quote that just has "men" in it.
Load more comments...