Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General / Re: Makes me want to go to Home Depot and pay them double retail for a crowbar.....

« on: June 05, 2011, 03:17:57 PM »

If I boycotted every place that supported something I was strongly against, I'd have no place to shop.

2

General / Re: Herman Cain for President

« on: June 01, 2011, 04:26:28 PM »

Ok. I'm calling foul. That first one is no rabbit dildo. That's a Poppinfresh dildo.

3

General / Re: Herman Cain for President

« on: May 29, 2011, 07:54:11 PM »

How wrong is it for a heterosexual male to want a wiggly rabbit dildo? I seriously scare myself from time to time.

What is your avatar pic from?

It's a screenshot of an old Psychic Bunny logo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lom1jJ9PY0Q
Go to 5:08 to view it.

4

General / Re: Herman Cain for President

« on: May 29, 2011, 05:31:10 PM »

He's meant as a positive step for freedom in the US.

He won't be. What he'll be is a large consumption of time and money that would be better spent elsewhere.

Look, he's gonna get 1-1.5% of the vote. This is what is going to happen whether he gets a nom nom nomination or not. He'll gank up the Libertarian vote, which, while statistically insignificant and will probably be directed at another useless jackoff like Bob Barr, would probably leech less money from people.

Also, "Positive step for freedom" is probably not true. If you've got a bus scheduled to drive a group of people toward the edge of a cliff, and during the trip you replace the driver who is making a steady 55mph with Ron Paul, who is willing to slow down to 10mph, you're still gonna fly off the edge of a fucking cliff, man. It'll just take longer and everyone will blame Ron Paul supporters when it happens.

You get off of the fucking bus yo.

This whole thing is nothing but another ancap/minarchist fight hidden behind the excuse of Ron Paul.

If you're a minarchist and think that voting will help you, there's probably no better choice than Ron Paul.

If you're a market anarchist or anarchocapitalist or voluntaryist or leavemethefuckaloneian like me or whatever word applies this week, who thinks it's a sucker's game and a waste of time, you'll spend your money on something more important. Like socks or pickles or a new dildo with a wiggly rabbit on it or whatever.

The idea that people will find more freedom from politicians stealing their money by giving money to a politician hurts my fucking brain.

How wrong is it for a heterosexual male to want a wiggly rabbit dildo? I seriously scare myself from time to time.

5

General / Re: Anyone heard of organized stalking?

« on: May 08, 2011, 08:30:08 PM »

I've heard of beans stalking, if that's any comfort.

6

General / Re: review of Ron Paul's new book

« on: May 06, 2011, 05:02:54 AM »

I've read it. It was quite good. This time he doesn't talk on and on about the Constitution. (A good thing because the Constitution is not synonymous with liberty)

Even better that it's not anonymous with liberty or else we'd have over 9000 amendments.

Yeah, I hate myself for going there. 

7

General / Re: Ron Paul won't beat Obama because Americans will get afraid

« on: May 06, 2011, 05:00:17 AM »

As much as I would love to see Ron Paul as president, I wont because there is no way in hell he will win. The majority of our country likes things the way they are. They are only upset when the big government they get is not the big government they wanted. Political forces are entrenched. He would first have to stand up against Republicans who want more big government and higher taxes. He'd lose in the first round. Remember when he went up against Guiliani and fought rhetoric with logic?

The audience loved the shit out of the rhetoric.

I'll third this. Ron Paul has no chance, but if he's to accomplish anything, it's to see who grabs the ball Ron leaves to take to the next steps. He was never the answer. Only the ignition.

For the majority, yes, none of them believe in freedom or liberty or change. All they believe in is dominion. They believe in oppression, in dictatorship. George W Bush said two very wise things if used in the right context. One was that it would be a lot easier if it was a dictatorship as long as he was the dictator. And the majority in this country loves dictatorships as long as they're the dictators. As long as they're the oppressors. "Don't tell me what to do, but I have the right to tell you what to do." The other is when he called the constitution a goddamn piece of paper. Ok, he was close. The constitution is a whore, actually. But in one way he was right since the majority don't believe in it. He shouldn't be, but what good would arguing that do in such an elitist society?

8

General / Re: Bin Ladin is dead

« on: May 02, 2011, 05:19:21 PM »

The oppression must continue to prevent future Bin Ladens. Our masters have spoken.

9

General / Re: OHSNAP. Atlas Shrugged Trailer -

« on: April 24, 2011, 07:11:54 PM »

All the same, it's impossible for me to get my head around the idea that AS is a story. Not at long as the praise and hatred remains the way it is.

If you base your opinions around what other people say rather than your own experiences, you should probably never read AS. You won't enjoy the story.

It's a story. A semi science fiction/mystery story. There is a high tech engine and choo choo trains and people backstabbing each other and people fucking and people doing what people do. There are plots, subplots, flashbacks, snarky dialog, suicides, murders, people listening to music, peopl building shit, people tearing down shit, death rays, etc.

But like I said, if you are more interested in basing your opinions on hearsay than the evidence of your own senses and experiences , then really, you probably should avoid the book.

I actually based my opinion here on what I thought the book was and how the realization of what the book is has caused a creation of skepticism towards its worth as a story. It's not what people said, it's how the book was treated. Doesn't matter by whom. Positive or negative, it was treated the same way. Keep in mind that I never read or heard any reviews of the novel prior to the movie. No opinions on if someone liked it or not, but I've been barraged with an abundance of AS references in political discussions. The use of the book as a measuring stick on how "libertarian" one is. Or even the recent acknowledgement of problems in this country causing an increase in AS book sales. How can anyone expect me to think differently than I currently do when AS is shrouded in a messiah environment?

I do not, DO NOT, want my opinion to feel like a discrediting of AS. I like that people take to heart the message in the book (based on how it's treated, it's not rocket science to figure out the gist of what that message is). This is only my reason why I'm not caring to see the movie. You say that I should avoid it. All I've done was explain why I am.

10

General / Re: OHSNAP. Atlas Shrugged Trailer -

« on: April 23, 2011, 10:12:53 PM »

So that's your misconception, and I think it biases you against the project. One of the greatest arguments that critics of Ayn Rand have is that it is a fiction novel. Randroids love the fact that she's a storyteller as well as a philospher.

I'm making no bones that I've developed a misconception about the novel, but it's easy to do so when hardly anyone treats it as a novel. At least, nobody I've heard who brought it up in the past. And I've never heard any such critic. Everything I had heard about Rand was entirely political. All the same, it's impossible for me to get my head around the idea that AS is a story. Not at long as the praise and hatred remains the way it is. Not from anyone here, mind you. You guys are doing a good job in battling my ignorance. As futile as it may be.

11

General / Re: OHSNAP. Atlas Shrugged Trailer -

« on: April 23, 2011, 04:06:50 AM »

No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.

Well, beaten over the head with a soapbox. Any form of art that sacrifices art for message becomes a disgrace to art. Not to say that this movie is like that, but that's what my impression is given how the real rabid Rand fans praise the movie the same way real rabid Christians praised PotC. "Forget how well the movie really was, it's pushing our agenda. Over 9000 stars." I will concede that AS is unlike PotC in that AS isn't a snuff film. However, when the message is the only thing praised, quality be damned, the comparison is valid.

OK, so the biggest fans will like it no matter what anybody says? Doesn't any form of art have that contingent? I've mainly seen, "good movie, but the (insert issue here) wasn't so good."

All forms of art has it in one form or another. Many of which are too trivial to take seriously. It's the art with a "message" that bugs me the most. Not to say that it has one primarily, but that's the only thing that would seem to matter. It ceases being a movie and becomes a sermon. You've seen "Good movie, but..." and not see what is being said as to what makes it "good" in their minds. I dare say that if they took out the "message" from the equation, hardly anyone would say AS was a good movie. Same goes with anything where the message is primary focus.

Now, perhaps AS was never intended the message to be the primary focus (I don't know, never read the book, don't care to) and if that was the case, than the fans made it so. For the longest time, I thought AS was a political book and not an actual novel. Call that misunderstanding ignorance, but the diehard fans of Rand fed that ignorance to me. Unintentionally, of course.

I think plot and meaning are major components of whether something is 'good'. If you just want something mindless to stare at, by all means, go ahead. Good art, however, is defined differently by different people. It was a good movie because it portrayed Rand's message mildly effectively (double adverbs allowed?) and because I enjoyed the plot, Rearden's acting, and the twist on Rand's settings.

It's not a matter of something mindless or not. When it comes to movies, I simply want a story to be told. I don't want a sermon. Mindless movies commonly are just as bad as they sacrifice story for eye and ear candy. So AS has a story. Why did it take who knows how many years for someone to mention it had one? All the years prior, I could've sworn it was on the same shelf as Dianetics. Uh... Dianetics doesn't have a story, does it? I don't want a second popular book to sneak up on me as being something other than what I thought it was.

12

General / Re: OHSNAP. Atlas Shrugged Trailer -

« on: April 21, 2011, 06:23:48 PM »

No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.

Well, beaten over the head with a soapbox. Any form of art that sacrifices art for message becomes a disgrace to art. Not to say that this movie is like that, but that's what my impression is given how the real rabid Rand fans praise the movie the same way real rabid Christians praised PotC. "Forget how well the movie really was, it's pushing our agenda. Over 9000 stars." I will concede that AS is unlike PotC in that AS isn't a snuff film. However, when the message is the only thing praised, quality be damned, the comparison is valid.

OK, so the biggest fans will like it no matter what anybody says? Doesn't any form of art have that contingent? I've mainly seen, "good movie, but the (insert issue here) wasn't so good."

All forms of art has it in one form or another. Many of which are too trivial to take seriously. It's the art with a "message" that bugs me the most. Not to say that it has one primarily, but that's the only thing that would seem to matter. It ceases being a movie and becomes a sermon. You've seen "Good movie, but..." and not see what is being said as to what makes it "good" in their minds. I dare say that if they took out the "message" from the equation, hardly anyone would say AS was a good movie. Same goes with anything where the message is primary focus.

Now, perhaps AS was never intended the message to be the primary focus (I don't know, never read the book, don't care to) and if that was the case, than the fans made it so. For the longest time, I thought AS was a political book and not an actual novel. Call that misunderstanding ignorance, but the diehard fans of Rand fed that ignorance to me. Unintentionally, of course.

13

General / Re: OHSNAP. Atlas Shrugged Trailer -

« on: April 19, 2011, 03:41:03 PM »

No, this isn't libertarian PotC. First, production value was way lower in this movie than PotC. Second, there are some good aspects of this movie. Third, all art has some kind of message, but I think you're referring to being beaten over the head with cliches, tired platitudes, and dogmatic assertion.

Well, beaten over the head with a soapbox. Any form of art that sacrifices art for message becomes a disgrace to art. Not to say that this movie is like that, but that's what my impression is given how the real rabid Rand fans praise the movie the same way real rabid Christians praised PotC. "Forget how well the movie really was, it's pushing our agenda. Over 9000 stars." I will concede that AS is unlike PotC in that AS isn't a snuff film. However, when the message is the only thing praised, quality be damned, the comparison is valid.

14

General / Re: OHSNAP. Atlas Shrugged Trailer -

« on: April 17, 2011, 04:25:36 PM »

Let me see if I can sum up what I've read into a whacked-out opinion.

I take from this that this movie is the Libertarian version of The Passion Of The Christ where the most devout Rynd fan would praise it no matter how bad it really was. "It has a good message" does not qualify as a positive to a movie in my view and that includes messages that I agree with. In fact (a word being used way too loosely), the more of a focus on the message it has, the worse the movie becomes. Same goes with music. Entertainment with a message turns me off.

15

General / Re: John Stossel on "Libertopia", Free State Project!

« on: March 26, 2011, 09:50:12 PM »

chris lawless?
is that his wrestling name?

No, just a REAL obsessive Xena fan. (Reaching into my outdated bag of tricks, I did.)