So did her heroes. They didn't strike out of indifference, but they didn't run around spitting name-calling and insults either. The emphasis was on reason and rational action. They were not devoid of emotional response but also not emotionally granting a significance their enemies did not deserve. In referring to "parasites", "moochers", etc. it was always a rational description as part of a philosophically objective analysis in full context, not isolated outbursts of name-calling.

Assassination for political purposes is taking us back to the mentality of 1930s Europe and Russia. The widespread hysteria and violence that is growing isn't causeless or the result of mere personal 'issues'. It is the result of the growing anti-reason, anti-individualism in the culture. Telling people to or wishing that they would just 'calm down' and not care so much, as some do, is no solution.

The 'us vs them' is imposed on us, it doesn't make everyone who is angry at the perpetrators of violence and the growing statism responsible for it. Even those frustrated conservatives who persistently vent with 'labels' in place of reasoned analysis are not the equivalent of incendiary promoters of violence. Rather, there is a lack of rational, philosophical understanding that is badly needed.

"Their policies "involve" everyone through the force of government."
I don't see it at all. Their policies only involve people who make a living getting people worked up, and the few people benefiting from specific programs.

We supposedly just had a highly divisive election. But when it comes to spending, President Trump proposed the same budget levels as under President Obama's forecast. He proposes increasing borrowing from 400 billion to 1 trillion, but Congress will probably not go along. I think spending and borrowing will both end up at the same levels as if Clinton were president. It will be spend on slightly different programs, but still most of it will go to Social Security and military.

When it comes to intrusiveness, President Trump appointed Jeff Sessions, who is not known for decreasing gov't intrusiveness, to AG. I have no illusions about Clinton. She would have appointed people who favor gov't intrusiveness too, so intrusiveness would be the same.

I see no one imposing significantly more or less force. I see no ideology. It all show business for ugly people. Idiots carry on about the freak lurid crime of the day, and it would do me well to ignore it. Reading about it is like reading articles about the lives of healthy people who develop a horrible rare disease and die a painful death. That would drive me crazy. I should quit reading anything about crime beyond a brief factual summary. It does not involve me at all.

Right idea, wrong date. Trump may be our Julian and thus the date is February 363. Rome (read the swamp) killed their last great hope. On August 24, 410 Rome was sacked.

That's an oldie but a goodie. Liked it when it first came out and still do.

I did not intend any "swipe" regarding my reference to the Second Amendment. I simply meant that I do not remember any reference in AS to the citizens rising up against a rising ride of tyranny. It seems to me in my reading of AS that the Socialist/Progressive ideas of Wesley Mouch and crew were mostly accepted by the people (out of propaganda, etc.), but not really resisted. Yes, there were crowd-control technologies being invented, but that reference was towards the end of the book. I take it your reference to the "anti-intellectual man on a white horse" is to Barry Obama; in that I agree totally. My reference to the internet was that it allows for a much more free flow of information, not just from the oligarchy of the so-called "mainstream media." CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc., no longer have a monopoly on slanting the news. Yes, knowledge is power...

Ayn Rand saw it in the Soviet Union and did in fact see it coming here. She knew first hand about demagogues of all kinds. The internet is not required for understanding. Knowledge and history did not begin in the 1990s.

She did not "ignore" the Second Amendment, what ever that swipe is supposed to mean, and did not ignore Trump, who did not exist as any public influence and could not be ignored or not ignored -- she did warn of the possibility of an anti-intellectual man on a white horse movement on the way down to dictatorship or civil war and chaos.

She strongly advocated the necessity of advocating for reason and individualism in reforming the course of the nation (and the world); she was not an anarchist and did not support violently lashing out.

Re: ". . . the good guys always kept their benevolent sense of life. Their emotional response to mysticism, altruism, and collectivism was indifference." Not always, and Ayn Rand's own emotional responses were often not indifference. She had some choice, emotionally loaded names for her opponents such as parasites, moochers, looters, and mindless thugs.

Equating victims with the perpetrators is a viciously unjust evasion of essential differences. It is appeasement, which would indeed kill us in the end, not a "civil and moderate approach".

Rush has inspired me to put on amusing things like this well-remembered bit that was on a long time ago~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4huq...

Names like "The Evil Hag" don't contribute to the analysis, but the contempt they show for The Evil Hag, et al is well deserved. And yes, the attempt to equate that with advocating "shooting people" is an irrational attack on the civilized people who are the victims of the The Evil Hag, et al.

Socialism routinely and systematically employs the brute force of the state to suppress the rights of the individual. Observing socialist Bernie Sander's contradiction in claiming to be against violence is not "falling in step", not a "low point of discourse", and not advocating "shooting" people.

This is not a "fine point in Objectivism" and Atlas Shrugged is not a "stunt novel".

Their policies "involve" everyone through the force of government. The statists are imposing the force and threatening worse out of their irrational ideology. It isn't causeless.

Outbursts of hysteria, political chaos and violence are not causeless and do not dominate in a society based on reason and individualism, which is what America had, but not fully, and which we are losing.

So...that was a Peugeot! I never figured that one out.

RINO hunting is justified, they need kicked out of office. Their goal is to transform our country to NWO and end capitalism. As far as the feeling about the previous administration, we were lied to and duped form day one. We wanted the reign to end, but did not claim we had the right to kill, no matter how bad. That administration, however, did claim the right and encourage lawlessness by their constituents. Be is illegal servers, meddling in the elections of several other countries, or encouraging lawless violence, Obama did it all. Still is promoting the lawless violence of Alinsky to this day. The man was a cocaine using thug from his Hawaii days, dabbling in illegal gay prostitution to afford the habit, to selling out the country to ISLAM for his own gain, providing false documents, and allowing Hillary's illegal activities to have a pass. Yet no violence in response from the far left. No, only those who drank the kool aid and bought into the entitlement idea claim the right to kill. Madanna wanted her 15 minutes of fame by claiming to want to blow up the White House. Ashley Judd was in search of nut house via her nonsensical rants. Rosie claimed the right to call for viewers to kill Trump, above the law this hag. They have no morals, self chosen or others, just the right of getting teir own way and having others pay for it. Hillary claimed the right to impose UN Agenda 21 on us, to control our every life activity, based on lies. Hillary approved her buyy's sale of weapon grade uranium to enemy Russia. These folks have no God to answer to. But neither do they have the ideals set forth by Rand, to guide them. They are a bunch of hyenas following the horrible talking points which got so much worse under Obana and his original ACORN mob, who brought the mortgage by sending mobs to bank board meetings, ignoring the capitalism which made this country special. Streisand hires a foreign affairs person to tell her what to believe. US schools brainwash students into robot supporters of all taking points about global warming or immigration. The minds and reason of our citizens have been stolen by these liberal dunces, who claim the right over another person's life and abiltiy to free thought. That is as bad as a person can get.

Mike, when a sitting Attorney General says we need more blood in the streets, and more death to move people to make a difference (Loretta Lynch did just that), and the media, aside from Fox News, sees that as a justified statement, that signals that violence is a justifiable instrument. That signal has been heard, and groups like Antifa are becoming increasingly violent. The Alexandria shooter probably isn't going to be the last violent actor.

Progressive tolerance of angry special interests, letting them destroy property, set fires, and carry out assault on anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is a big mistake. Rage like this has been fed all too long by an American left that admires socialist extremism, and thinking that an easy hand will allow the rioters to let off steam is a mistake.

The perpetually angry are being radicalized by violence advocated by celebrities and opinion writers. I hope that the DOJ will investigate the radicalization of the latest shooter just as they do with those radicalized by Islamist propaganda.

There's a big leap from simple name-calling and threatening statements. The right wing threatening speech has been generally confined to minor players. No big celebrity or conservative writer of distinction called for the death of Obama, like many on the left are in attacking Trump. I don't buy into the baloney that both sides are equally at fault.

It is idiots running their mouths, CG. Idiots who have been manipulated by liberal media. Yes, there are other idiots who are manipulated by anti-liberal media. (People have a public outlet today to garner attention and for 99.99999% that is where the activity stops.) Politicians and media propagandists have been subversively manipulating people like this for ages and they are masters of the activity. The pols and media have been known on occasion to create the news that moves people to their biased way of thinking (similar to the FBI's entrapment activities), and it wouldn't surprise me if this was another example.

Most of the decisions made that people are upset about are decisions that should never have been made by government in the first place.

Maybe they is you, Mike, but it certainly isn't us.

they want the guns to be owned by THEIR government people, and they are to be used against anyone who doesnt want to willingly give to the leftist cause.

Probably part of an interview for employment by the Clintons. Guess this will happen repeatedly until they find a competent applicant.

socialists, hillary supporters, sanders' supporters, etc. all have one thing in common- they want what they want and others should provide it willingly. If the victims dont provide, then we take it from them or kill them if they stand in the way.

RELISH

In their view only government gets the guns and is always on target... the target chosen by the left. They can't think 5 minutes into the future to see the result of those actions.