I don’t see any sort of irony. Galt was an ideal productive individual who did not need others to succeed... trickle down prosperity if you have to make the stretch. Jesus, on the other hand, was sent for sole purpose of saving the world. To me, polar opposites.
The problem with idiots and liberals (but I repeat myself) is that they think “trickle down” means that government GIVES money to the rich and they are supposed to give it to the poor.
I heard idiot Larry King say to a libtard that the problem with ‘trickle down economics’ was that “they didn’t trickle”- meaning those evil greedy rich kept all that money
What it means is that if the rich enterpreaneurs KEPT more of their money (not taxed away) they would be able to provide jobs which would the boost the economy.
You could also say that Jesus was sent with the sole purpose of -gaining- th world. Not so different at all.
>>> I don’t see any sort of irony. Galt was an ideal productive individual who did not need others to succeed... trickle down prosperity if you have to make the stretch. Jesus, on the other hand, was sent for sole purpose of saving the world. To me, polar opposites.
I did not draw an irony either... only a weak parallel between Rhand’s rendition of a savior and what that savior would end up doing about society’s evils. The only comparison I drew between Gault and Jesus was the solution of removing producers[believers] from society and letting evil take it’s natural course as a result.
Nobody can be compared to Jesus.