[the invisib1e hand]

What does that mean? Sound like you're trying to say something disparaging but don't have the stones to come out and say it.

my criticisms of Rand's glaring, obvious logical weaknesses, which naturally enough send her followers into a tizzy of ad-hominem sniping repleat with clever graphics, are public record.

You really should do your homework before you embarass yourself publicly by baselessly insulting someone else.

[samtheman]

“Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.”

This is one I particularly like. Does this one have an “obvious logical weakness”? If so, I don’t see it and need your help pointing it out to me.

Thanks.

[BipolarBob]

You really should do your homework before you embarrass yourself publicly by baselessly insulting someone else.

So homework is needed before "the embarrassment in public by baselessly insulting somebody" thing and everything will be okay?

[I see my hands]

I asked an obvious question. One you hoped to elicit.

You're anyone's homework? What a stupid thing to say.

What are your objections?

[AlanGreenSpam]

Fantastic Ayn Rand quotes for anyone who believes in Liberty.

btw, when you try to use big words, at least spell them right. It’s “replete” not “repleat.”

I’d like you to expound further on your “criticisms of Rand’s glaring, obvious logical weaknesses” if you wouldn’t mind.

Perhaps starting with any of these 20 quotes from her. Do you see anything wrong with the content of her quotes? Or is your post just an ad-hom on her because you don’t like her?

Bonus question: Is it possible to allow oneself to applaud someone whose message is powerful and correct even if you don’t happen to like that person personally?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

So, in other words, you are too lazy to refute any of her observations, so you dismiss them categorically?

[Tenacious 1]

Rand was an athiest. That’s no secret. She was a philosopher. The basis of her philosophy was the ambition, character and spirit of the individual person. She came from communism and settled in the USA.

If you can separate her philosophy from theology in general and focus on the civics associated with government’s relationship with the individual, I think all conservatives would agree with her political positions.

Her philosophy was that righteous citizens, acting in their own best interest is in fact what is best for all citizens and society at large. She believed that by nature, the individual success spawned opportunities for others to pursue their own success. She also believed that charitable giving was something each individual was to decide and should not be compelled by either mandate or taxes. She had no pitty for the lazy person or the looters (poor entitlement class).

On same sex marriage, I’d be curious to know where she would have stood. I suspect she would have been ok with it as individuals desired it. She didn’t have a religiously based moral compass.