Posted on 04/16/2005 8:24:12 PM PDT by Utah Eagle
The morals she espouses are definately leftist--do whatever you want with whomever you want. Her economics are clearly not.
Lots of people have complained about Wikipedia. Its reputation for shabbily thrown together and unreliable "facts" is pretty well known by now.
I agree...anyone who thinks Ayn Rand is a leftist need only read her 1971 book "The New Left, the Anti-intellectual Revolution" [its updated version has been retitled "Return Of The Primitive, the Anti-intellectual Revolution"] to see straight from the 'horses mouth' that Objectivism certainly is NOT leftism...methinks the Philosophress must be spinning in her grave like a dynamo to hear herself described as a leftist...lol.
And btw, Ayn Rand is about as far from "the American Left" as possible.
Yep, which is the case with the Terri Schiavo, and reading the posts about the dispute, they kept the article from straying into Micheal bashing as several contributors had done and got their accounts pulled.
OMG, I hadn't heard that! Google will cease to be of use to me if they do that. Hope there'll be another search engine coming along that can fill their shoes.
well edit it yourself
Would that it were so simple. Each night the drool-donkeys of that wretched Leftist meme pile scours the new edits, -anything that doesn't carry a FULL-ON HARD-LEFT P.O.V. gets deleted.
That site is NOTORIUS for spreading Leftist B.S.
Since Wikipedia is made up of the collective knowledge of many, would it be fair to say that we have a conservative alternative to it, right here at Free Republic?
And Objectivism isn't leftism, IMO.
Wikipedia allows anyone to edit the articles, and then they edit out anything that offends their LEFTWING sensibilities. -There's not a SHRED of objectivism to be found there.
My claims are easy to back up, if you would like proof. But I'd hope you'd check into it on your own first.
They push an agebda HARD, under the pretense and appearance of a "collaborative effort" as I said, they heavily edit, anything that doesn't fit with their very OWN set of "opinions".
Yes, Wikipedia is leftist. Which is why I go on their and make editions. For example, I changed Michael Moore's description from "liberal" to "ultra-liberal."
I wonder if it's still up.
F.R. doesn't package and offer all of it's "Opinion" as "Fact"
objectivism is a godless and man-exalting ideology.
However, it is more libertarian.
My "ultra-liberal" label was taken down. Yet, they refer to Michael Savage as a "right-wing" talk show host. So, I changed Michael Moore's label to "left-wing."
That better stick, cause you can't have double standards.
Ah. Wikipedia is another venue for making out position known. Freepers should camp out there.
That's not the way the heros in her books behave. They have weird sex like rabbits. I was once an objectivist and now believe that her ethics are a dead-end. Her personal life (presumably the epitome the application of Objectivist principles) reflected the moral confusion epitomized by the heros of her novels.
She did a great job of understanding and exposing what the left is about. But she failed, in my opinion, in the additional thinking she did and she especially failed to develop a workable basis for morality. I think the essence of her problem is that she confused selfishness in the economic sphere, which, if properly harnessed in a capitalist system is a public virtue, with selfishness in the personal sphere. The end of that trail is the 60's and the inability to distinguish right from wrong--I mean, Wesley Mouch was acting selfishly (even though he rationalized it as for the common good). Thus, how can Rand really say he was wrong. Her philosophy, if applied rigorously, would say his selfish behavior was OK. But she can't go there because he was a leftist and has to be bad. She's right in that respect but for the wrong reasons.
The left rules the mass media. How is it different on sites like this?
And you're a real dumbass if you think Wikipedia sucks because its founder likes Ayn Rand. Wikipedia sucks because nobody on the right CARES enough to revise it. I've revised Reagan's page on numerous occasions, but it almost instantly reverts because the left's more tenacious about its lying than the right is about maintaining honesty.
Tom DeLay's situation demonstrates the proof of that. RINOs and Pubbies are all scurrying to leftist lies, while the left stands tall in King County and at CBS even after their lies are exposed for even the blind to see.
Is this connected with the Wiccan religion ..??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.