Freedomain Radio

Holy crap!  He's a blatant collectivist!

There seems... something wrong with him. Not only with what he's saying... but look at him not being able to sit still, and how his eyes are.

Not A Number:

Holy crap!  He's a blatant collectivist!

Yeah, a collectivist, tribalist advocate of mass murder. The "dead end" of Objecivist fundamentalism.

wow... I would hope rand would be displease to say the least.

*shudders and backs away from my Objectivist past as much as possible*

 You don`t need to debate those objectivists. You let them talk.

Charlotte:

 

There seems... something wrong with him. Not only with what he's saying... but look at him not being able to sit still, and how his eyes are.

Yes, I noticed that too. It's quite painfully obvious that this man was not loved as a child.

WTF?! Let's hope the founder of the Stefan Molyneux institute doesn't go completely off the rails like that.  That's just insane.  What happened to individualism?

Nathan:

 Let's hope the founder of the Stefan Molyneux institute doesn't go completely off the rails like that.   

 Since you bring it up, It is my fear. I realy don`t see how this discussion will keep it sizzle after Stefan`s death. Stefan still correct and suprise even the old fdr members. It seems poeple still not "get it". If you know what I mean? 

Man...he has really gone off his rocker.  totally insane garbage.

Don't ya just love it when people on the other side reveal their vile, irrational nature by themselfs?

Well, in Atlas Shrugged, Rand talked about how a man who was given money that he did not earn would be destroyed by that money.

Lenny was also given power that he did not earn, by being designated by her as her intellectual heir.

She should have known what would happen, that he would not be able to handle it.

But then I don't think she handled her own power very well either.

Where does he come up with his information? Iran is the source of Islamic fundamentalist movement? As far as I understand Iran has never produced a suicide terrorist in its history (neither did Iraq before we invaded). He also says that Iran is agressing against US. In what way? US is the one with its navy off their shores and using threatening language. Then he tries to tie in the twin tower attacks to the Iranians. Didn't we already suffer through this fallacy in regards to Iraq? The only thing that could be said of Iran is that they provide financial support to hammas/hezbolla types which is a "threat" perhaps to Israel not the US. It's pretty messed up when Bill O'reilly is the more reasonable one in the discussion.

Is this view widely held by modern Objectivists?

what. the. fuck.