Posted on 04/19/2011 12:29:41 PM PDT by Rufus2007
Sure. But you can't therefore make the case that Paul Ryan might be a terrorist because he likes Ayn Rand's books.
Shall we start to round up all the Shakespeare faculty from our college campuses? /sarcasm
The sickness of Liberalism infects the body politic and media.
Hey did anyone tell the asshat PMSNBC guest about Hussein’s real-life buddy Bill Ayers?
I agree. I was just pointing out a terrorist act by one of Ayn Rand’s characters.
The fictional bomber (Roark), attested to his fictional acts and was acquited by a jury.. NO FELONY, NO TERRORISM.
As usual the Left makes up its own inaccurate versions of things to support their unsupportable innuendo, smear, and desperate disparagement of one who is seriously trying to address the nations problems.
Their analogy fails factually. They are stupid.
I wasn’t defending the analogy at all. I was just pointing out how a protagonist in one of her novels commits what many would consider to be a terrorist act.
OK. :0)
You are making the same mistake the Leftists made, you are accepting their false premise. They analogise Ryan a real person to Roark a fictional person, who in the fictional book when through a jury trial over his fictional acts, which were determined to have been not criminal, not felonious, not terrorism.
We dropped bombs on Japan in August, 1945. Was that terrorism?
Criminality depends on the circumstances. If the Left wants to discuss Ryans interest in Rands philosophy and insinuate that he must be a terrorist, then the Left needs to explain their reasoning which is little more than delusional thinking and mischaracterization of Rands work as a smear job on Ryan.
What many might consider something does not make it so. It is or is not what you lable it. In this case it is not what you label it. The analogy fails. The Left is looney as always, and the uncritical mind is easily seduced by simpletons logic.
“And Obama’s admiration for Bill Ayers is....
*crickets* “
And didn’t Bill Clinton pardon FALN terrorists to help his wife’s New York election chances?
Doesn’t the present POTUS side with, forgive or assist groups that want to ...oh never mind. *crickets*
Roark dynamites Cortlandt because his design was stolen from him. IMNSHO perfectly justifiable
No one is killed or severely injured. As the building’s architect he uses just enough explosive in a few crucial places to bring it down.
And he beats the rap in court.
I agree in principle, but Roarke’s action in the book (and film, for that matter) could certainly arguably be considered terrorism. Its open to interpretation, of course, but it certainly fits conventional definitions of terrorism.
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.