Ann Coulter on Immigration

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]nephorm wrote:
doogie wrote:
Read ANTHEM. It takes like one good dump on the toilet to get through the thing.

Is that a commentary on the work itself, or just on the amount of time it takes to read it? ;-)[/quote]

Just the fact you will have a better use for the pages.

82

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
doogie wrote:
Read ANTHEM. It takes like one good dump on the toilet to get through the thing.

Is that a commentary on the work itself, or just on the amount of time it takes to read it? :wink:

Just the fact you will have a better use for the pages.[/quote]

Zap,
Have you read it? Not someone else’s review or what someone else said, YOU.
Unless you have and can demonstate why it’s toilet paper, you are giving opinions about something of which you have no knowledge. Not very up-and-up, for an engineer.

83

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
doogie wrote:
Read ANTHEM. It takes like one good dump on the toilet to get through the thing.

Is that a commentary on the work itself, or just on the amount of time it takes to read it? :wink:

Just the fact you will have a better use for the pages.

Zap,
Have you read it? Not someone else’s review or what someone else said, YOU.
Unless you have and can demonstate why it’s toilet paper, you are giving opinions about something of which you have no knowledge. Not very up-and-up, for an engineer.

[/quote]

I have not read Anthem but if it as poorly written as Atlas Shrugged my remark is accurate.

84

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I have not read Anthem but if it as poorly written as Atlas Shrugged my remark is accurate.

[/quote]

I don’t think Atlas Shrugged was necessarily poorly written, but it was surely poorly edited. That’s the problem when the author is the de facto editor, and convinced of her own genius.

85

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I have not read Anthem but if it as poorly written as Atlas Shrugged my remark is accurate.

I don’t think Atlas Shrugged was necessarily poorly written, but it was surely poorly edited. That’s the problem when the author is the de facto editor, and convinced of her own genius.[/quote]

Good point. If it was cut down it might have been readable.

86

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There’s a good subject for a thread: what IS a hippie? :slight_smile:

To me, a hippie is someone who grew up in a very protected world, then goes out into it and project those things and values on it.[/quote]

Hijack!
Not to start any issues, but this first line you wrote is very telling. Do you realize that this statement descibes George W. Bush, Jeb Bush and pretty much the entire Bush family born after Prescott? It also descibes, John Kerry, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, many of the movers and shakers behind both the RNC and the DNC and pretty much a huge majority in Congress.

This is the major problem with our government system. It is filled with people of privilege that never had to actually work for anything. Many of them have absolutely no clue what it is like to be a regular person because they have never experienced it. How can they represent the people when they have never been one of them?

However, this statement does not describe, no matter how much you would like it to, Bill Clinton. He grew up dirt poor and had to earn everything on his own. That was part of his appeal to the American people, that he came from nothing to become the president. The biggest reason why he is so hated is that he was just as scummy as his detratctors and was able to play the game better than they could. Much of it was professional jealousy (or player-hating for those of you that were born after 1975).

Also, despite what some people may spin out there about him, Jimmy Carter did not grow up in a protected world either. He grew up on a farm with a strong and true understanding of hard work. His biggest flaw was that he was not scummy enough to be a politician. He couldn’t make hard decisions because he actually cared about the American people and the consequences of his actions on them. Many people take that as a sign of weakness and in the dirty world of politics, it is a weakness.

Am I saying that I agree with everything these two did? No, of course not, despite what some close-minded, one-dimensional people might think or say about me. All I am saying is that the first part of your statement really doesn’t apply to them.
Hijack Over!

87

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Wow, you can read and understand a novel in whatever, 15 minutes! I’m impressed!!! Just, WOW!!!
[/quote]

Doofus, it’s only 105 pages of easy reading.

Click here and tell me how long it would take you to read 105 pages formatted like this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/087004124X/ref=sib_fs_bod/002-8783348-2668862?_encoding=UTF8&p=S00O&checkSum=hMVL3Dq94L3l1F6Su70UJsoV1PXwd5X2R7RFzH2eF6E%3D#reader-link

Here’s the entire book:

http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/mcnally/anthem/

88

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

However, this statement does not describe, no matter how much you would like it to, Bill Clinton…

Also, despite what some people may spin out there about him, Jimmy Carter did not grow up in a protected world either…

Am I saying that I agree with everything these two did? No, of course not, despite what some close-minded, one-dimensional people might think or say about me. All I am saying is that the first part of your statement really doesn’t apply to them.
Hijack Over!

[/quote]

What about Nixon and Reagan?

89

[quote]doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:

However, this statement does not describe, no matter how much you would like it to, Bill Clinton…

Also, despite what some people may spin out there about him, Jimmy Carter did not grow up in a protected world either…

Am I saying that I agree with everything these two did? No, of course not, despite what some close-minded, one-dimensional people might think or say about me. All I am saying is that the first part of your statement really doesn’t apply to them.
Hijack Over!

What about Nixon and Reagan?

[/quote]

Doogie,

He never mentioned Nixon and Reagan. The post specifically mentioned Clinton and Carter and thus, I was pointing out that the statement didn’t really apply to them. It also didn’t apply to Nixon as he was dirt poor as well. Reagan was a little more unique because he was a movie star before he got into politics, so he already had fame to help him. However, he also came from nothing and had an understanding of working hard for a living, so I can include him.

90

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Doogie,

He never mentioned Nixon and Reagan. The post specifically mentioned Clinton and Carter and thus, I was pointing out that the statement didn’t really apply to them. It also didn’t apply to Nixon as he was dirt poor as well. Reagan was a little more unique because he was a movie star before he got into politics, so he already had fame to help him. However, he also came from nothing and had an understanding of working hard for a living, so I can include him.[/quote]

I apologize. I should have been more clear. I was just wondering if you gave those two any form of respect for coming from nothing.

91

[quote]doogie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Wow, you can read and understand a novel in whatever, 15 minutes! I’m impressed!!! Just, WOW!!!

Doofus, it’s only 105 pages of easy reading.

Click here and tell me how long it would take you to read 105 pages formatted like this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/087004124X/ref=sib_fs_bod/002-8783348-2668862?_encoding=UTF8&p=S00O&checkSum=hMVL3Dq94L3l1F6Su70UJsoV1PXwd5X2R7RFzH2eF6E%3D#reader-link

Here’s the entire book:

http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/mcnally/anthem/

[/quote]

Let’s see…105 pages and let’s say it takes you 10 seconds to read a page. That’s 1050 seconds or 17.5 minutes. It therefore follows that (a) you take very long shits (b) you can understand things like plots, philosophical ideas, at the rate of a universal genius, like Leibniz or Goethe.

I am very impressed, Dougie! We are honored to have your contributions!!

92

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I have not read Anthem but if it as poorly written as Atlas Shrugged my remark is accurate.

I don’t think Atlas Shrugged was necessarily poorly written, but it was surely poorly edited. That’s the problem when the author is the de facto editor, and convinced of her own genius.

Good point. If it was cut down it might have been readable.[/quote]

Yes, it is hard work and requires some deep thought and pause for reflection. Its not meant for everyone. One of my degrees is in Philosophy and without that background, the book may appear to be incomprehensible.

You have to give the lady credit for trying to change the world. Of course, that means she should be ripped on – the one we have is just so wonderful!!

93

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Doofus, it’s only 105 pages of easy reading.

Click here and tell me how long it would take you to read 105 pages formatted like this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/087004124X/ref=sib_fs_bod/002-8783348-2668862?_encoding=UTF8&p=S00O&checkSum=hMVL3Dq94L3l1F6Su70UJsoV1PXwd5X2R7RFzH2eF6E%3D#reader-link

Here’s the entire book:

http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/mcnally/anthem/

Let’s see…105 pages and let’s say it takes you 10 seconds to read a page. That’s 1050 seconds or 17.5 minutes. It therefore follows that (a) you take very long shits (b) you can understand things like plots, philosophical ideas, at the rate of a universal genius, like Leibniz or Goethe.

I am very impressed, Dougie! We are honored to have your contributions!!

[/quote]

It’s actually less than 105 pages of story, and it’s not exactly a complicated tale.

I’ve moderated two discussions a year on the book for the last 5 years for a 6th/7th/8th grade Junior Great Books class. None of them have had problems grasping it. They do tend to think it’s a bit corny and uncreative. They think other things we read accomplish the same things as “Anthem” in a much more entertaining and creative way. For the most part, they like “Harrison Bergeron” and “The Giver” much more.

Anyway, it’s not like Rand didn’t steal the book from Yevgeny Zamyatin’s novel “We”.

I said you could read it during one good dump. You can. Easily. I’m sure Nephrom could read it and write a 10 page criticism of it in that time.

94

“We” is quite a bit different and is a rip on mathematics. Really, how can you compare launching a spacecraft called the ‘Integral’ to terrorize the universe with Reason, with Ms. Rand’s work?

It is not enough to merely read the words. I can ‘read’ a book like Anthem in a short time also. However, I don’t consider that reading.

You are dismissing an author who challenges our conventional concepts of morality by calling her work ‘toilet paper’. Do you dismiss other ideas so cavalierly?

95

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“We” is quite a bit different and is a rip on mathematics. Really, how can you compare launching a spacecraft called the ‘Integral’ to terrorize the universe with Reason, with Ms. Rand’s work?[/quote]

If you think of WE as just a “rip on mathematics”, you clearly haven’t read it or you are a total dumbass. Most likely both. Does WE involve a shitload of math? Yes. To say it is a “rip on mathematics” is as ignorant as saying ATLAS SHRUGGED is a rip on the steel making process. Do you think the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers attacked him and kept his works from being published because they had math anxiety? WE is a reaction to Stalinism, just like ANTHEM.

Do you want to admit you haven’t read WE or do you want to admit you didn’t understand it?

http://www.saint-andre.com/thoughts/zamyatin-rand.html

[quote]
Thus Rand’s formative college years coincided with the years of Zamyatin’s greatest fame and influence in Petersburg. He was at that time a hero to writers young and old, admired for his fierce independence and literary individualism, for he was virtually the only literary figure in Russia to voice his resistance to collectivism and conformity. Zamyatin was in those years a highly public literary and philosophical presence in Petersburg, and it is quite possible that Rand read some of his stories and essays (even the unpublishable We was “widely discussed in Petrograd,” B. Branden 1986, 143), attended one of his many public lectures at the House of Arts and the House of Writers, or even studied under him at the studios of the World Literature publishing house. [/quote]

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anthem_(novella)

Not alike at all.

[quote]
It is not enough to merely read the words. I can ‘read’ a book like Anthem in a short time also. However, I don’t consider that reading.

You are dismissing an author who challenges our conventional concepts of morality by calling her work ‘toilet paper’. Do you dismiss other ideas so cavalierly?[/quote]

Dismiss things like the very real similarities between WE and ANTHEM?

You are a dumbass.

Where did I dismiss her? Where did I call her work toilet paper? I said Nephrom could read it while taking a dump after he said he didn’t have time to read one of her books. Dump time is always quality reading time.

Why would I have my students read it every year if I dismissed her ideas completely?

Get your head out of your ass.

96

[quote]doogie wrote:
Here’s the entire book:

http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/mcnally/anthem/
[/quote]

doogie: thanks for the link. I read it tonight. After reading it, I think Ayn Rand would be in favor of immigration, as long as the immigrants were hand picked, and there were some sort of electric fence around the country. Thanks! :wink:

97

Doogie,

You are well-read but you are no philosopher.

Two people live in similar circumstances and she may have read and been influenced by Zamyatin’s work. Wow, does that ever happen?

If you don’t see that Zamyatin’s work is an attack on Reason and that Rand’s work is in praise of it, then you have a lot to learn.

Better to just shit while sitting there and not try to read. I don’t think you’re capable of doing those two things at once.

98

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Doogie,

You are well-read but you are no philosopher.

Two people live in similar circumstances and she may have read and been influenced by Zamyatin’s work. Wow, does that ever happen?

If you don’t see that Zamyatin’s work is an attack on Reason and that Rand’s work is in praise of it, then you have a lot to learn.

Better to just shit while sitting there and not try to read. I don’t think you’re capable of doing those two things at once.[/quote]

Admit you haven’t read the fucking thing, and quit taking pieces of other peoples’ opinions to try and make the book something it is not.

If you think WE is an attack on reason and ANTHEM a defense of it, then it would follow that Rand would defend the One State in WE. Do you really want to make that claim?

I know you didn’t read it, because not even you can be that stupid. It isn’t an attack on reason, dumbass. It is an attack on totalitarianism. Did Zamyatin use “reason and order” to represent totalitarianism? Of course. Can an average seventh-grader understand that? Yes.

See, unlike Rand who burned her anti-Soviet writings, he had the balls to publish his while in Russia. Hell, let me go ahead and point out that Orwell and Huxley had the integrity to admit they read WE and were influenced by it when writing 1984 and BRAVE NEW WORLD.

99

[quote]doogie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Doogie,

You are well-read but you are no philosopher.

Two people live in similar circumstances and she may have read and been influenced by Zamyatin’s work. Wow, does that ever happen?

If you don’t see that Zamyatin’s work is an attack on Reason and that Rand’s work is in praise of it, then you have a lot to learn.

Better to just shit while sitting there and not try to read. I don’t think you’re capable of doing those two things at once.

Admit you haven’t read the fucking thing, and quit taking pieces of other peoples’ opinions to try and make the book something it is not.

If you think WE is an attack on reason and ANTHEM a defense of it, then it would follow that Rand would defend the One State in WE. Do you really want to make that claim?

I know you didn’t read it, because not even you can be that stupid. It isn’t an attack on reason, dumbass. It is an attack on totalitarianism. Did Zamyatin use “reason and order” to represent totalitarianism? Of course. Can an average seventh-grader understand that? Yes.

See, unlike Rand who burned her anti-Soviet writings, he had the balls to publish his while in Russia. Hell, let me go ahead and point out that Orwell and Huxley had the integrity to admit they read WE and were influenced by it when writing 1984 and BRAVE NEW WORLD.

[/quote]

You use the ‘ass’ word a lot. Are you fascinated with men’s asses? Hmmm…okay, just kidding.

I have read We at least twice. Okay? I know there’s no way to prove that, but if you can say I didn’t (sans proof) then I can say I did (sans proof).

If the man was attacking totalitarianism, why did he say that math was ‘on its side’, so to speak? Could he have possibly thought that totalitarianism was the logical outcome of a mathematical, rational society? Everyone has a number, their imaginations are surgically removed (ah, that evil science again!), and the ship is called the Integral. How much more proof do you need?

If you accept Z’s premises, then ,yes, Rand would be on the side of evil. I don’t accept his premises. Since man is ‘The Rational Animal’ (Aristotle and Rand), to be non-rational is a suicidal death wish. You cannot be irrational, not for long anyway.

To be continued?

100

[quote]nephorm wrote:
doogie wrote:
Here’s the entire book:

http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/mcnally/anthem/

doogie: thanks for the link. I read it tonight. After reading it, I think Ayn Rand would be in favor of immigration, as long as the immigrants were hand picked, and there were some sort of electric fence around the country. Thanks! ;-)[/quote]

Glad you read it, Nephorm. Now, and I’m not messing with you: what did it say?

Please feel free to simply not answer. I’m not judging you, if you don’t want to write all that out.