antiquark

I don't have all the live albums yet, but trying to figure out which one to get next. I got "Time Machine", and man, I was getting a sore throat just listening to it. (Out of empathy for Geddy of course, who apparently had a cold during that show). So how would the live albums be ranked, if only taking vocal quality into consideration?

Good job Jake!

BTW: "Take a Friend" lyrics were written by Geddy and Alex!

Moving Pictures - Hemispheres - Power Windows - Hold Your Fire

Totally agree. In relation to the toll road idea, everyone assumes that the road owners will be fine upstanding citizens. That falls apart as soon as some greedy a-hole buys the only bridge off the island... be prepared for crappy service combined with exorbitant prices. At least if an elected government tries to screw the customer, there's an easy way to fire them... at the voting booth.

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert: Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit. Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish). If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others. While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

We must have been watching different videos. I heard about 4 people say "yeah" and more people laugh at that response while Paul answered the question in the negative. Why does personal freedom and personal responsibility scare you so much that you would make up such a lie? Lol, yes I've perpertrated a vast lie. Blitzer: "should we just let him die?" Crowd: "YES!" Or are you arguing that the crowd was actually watching a hockey game on their iphones, and a goal was just scored? That's why they cheered in unison? The problem with Objectivism is it falls apart as soon as you think out thought experiments. Personal freedom, personal responsibility... what happens if you were born crippled? Was that your responsibility? Or should you just die? These guys (Led and LABT) consider me to be a Socialist but you know, in the circumstances as described in th video, I would let him die. Why not? He took the deliberate decision to not pay medical insurance not that he couldn't afford it. What if someone wants to commit suicide, should you just let them do it? (Might sound like an unrelated question... but it's related!)

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes". So what are the non-governmental means to help the child? The stuff that Paul named in the video it now appears you haven't even watched. He said that "neighbours, friends, churches" would take care of the unfortunate. For one thing, Objectivism is atheistic, so you can't rely on churches existing in an Objectivist society. What happens if there's a natural disaster (e.g. hurricane) and your neighbours and friends are in the same dire straits as you? Who will take care of you? See what I mean about Objectivism falling apart when you think it through? No, it doesn't fall apart. It has the potential to lead to outcomes you don't like, though, even if you've utterly failed to make that case so far. But why should anybody embrace a philosophy that's full of unlikeable outcomes? The universe is cruel enough as it is, why must we also embrace a cruel ideology? You've described a reason for you not to follow objectivism: you value safety more than freedom, at least in the context of the dangers you've brought up. People who don't share that value judgment may come down differently on it. But, freedom from what? As far as I can tell, the only thing Objectivists want to be free from, is taxation. I am pro-freedom (freedom of speech, of though, of religion, etc), but I also believe that taxation is the price of a civilized society.

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes". So what are the non-governmental means to help the child? The stuff that Paul named in the video it now appears you haven't even watched. He said that "neighbours, friends, churches" would take care of the unfortunate. For one thing, Objectivism is atheistic, so you can't rely on churches existing in an Objectivist society. What happens if there's a natural disaster (e.g. hurricane) and your neighbours and friends are in the same dire straits as you? Who will take care of you? See what I mean about Objectivism falling apart when you think it through? No, it doesn't fall apart. It has the potential to lead to outcomes you don't like, though, even if you've utterly failed to make that case so far. But why should anybody embrace a philosophy that's full of unlikeable outcomes? The universe is cruel enough as it is, why must we also embrace a cruel ideology?

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes". So what are the non-governmental means to help the child? The stuff that Paul named in the video it now appears you haven't even watched. He said that "neighbours, friends, churches" would take care of the unfortunate. For one thing, Objectivism is atheistic, so you can't rely on churches existing in an Objectivist society. What happens if there's a natural disaster (e.g. hurricane) and your neighbours and friends are in the same dire straits as you? Who will take care of you? See what I mean about Objectivism falling apart when you think it through?

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes". So what are the non-governmental means to help the child?

Because I want you to drop the video argument, I'll just agree that in no way was the crowd cheering for the man to die. Only four of them shouted out "yes." It was just an odd coincidence. Okay then, what if the parents are too poor to feed the baby? Maybe they're alcoholics and spent all their money on liquor. What should happen to the baby? Not an emotional question, just factual. Objectivism should have an answer, what is it?

We must have been watching different videos. I heard about 4 people say "yeah" and more people laugh at that response while Paul answered the question in the negative. Why does personal freedom and personal responsibility scare you so much that you would make up such a lie? Lol, yes I've perpertrated a vast lie. Blitzer: "should we just let him die?" Crowd: "YES!" Or are you arguing that the crowd was actually watching a hockey game on their iphones, and a goal was just scored? That's why they cheered in unison? The problem with Objectivism is it falls apart as soon as you think out thought experiments. Personal freedom, personal responsibility... what happens if you were born crippled? Was that your responsibility? Or should you just die?

For me, this is the defining video of Randroidism. The crowd cheering "LET HIM DIE!" at a political debate:

I like arguing with Randroids, it's like shooting fish in a barrel!

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -- John Rogers

Good story!

Apparently Alex is under the tutelage of Bill Bailey, and says he will reveal "something special" during the tour. Here's the only video of Bill Bailey I could find on youtube:

Hope they bring out those quad-neck guitars!

This is a poll based on the original post by Jaminbenb. Is the following the real setlist, yes or no? The votes are public, so when Rush actually starts the tour, we will know who the "true believers" are, and who are the "ye of little faith!" ***SPOILER ALERT...!!!*** POSSIBLE R40 SET LIST...??? 1. 2112- Overture 2. Hemispheres Prelude (no vocals) 3. Freewill 4. Limelight 5. By-Tor & the Snowdog 6. Xanadu (complete) 7. A Passage to Bangkok 8. Beneath Between & Behind( Instrumental only) 9. Jacob's Ladder 10. Carnies Intermission 1. Headlong Flight(mid section drum solo) 2. Analog Kid 3. Red Barchetta 4. Witch Hunt 5. The Weapon 6. The Enemy Within 7. YYZ(drum solo) YYZ 8. Red Lenses(Bass Solo) Red Lenses 9. La Villa Strangiato (guitar solo) La Villa Strangiato 10. The Twilight Zone( vocals used from the album with bobble head geddy singing on the back screen video u have to see it to believe it lol!!!) 11. R40(grand finale)- Working Man==In the End==Bastille Day==Something for Nothing==A Farewell to Kings==Fly by Night==Spirit of Radio(Full Song) Encore 1. Tom Sawyer 2. Cygnus X-1 (Full Song) some vocals left out

IMHO, this setlist looks like the real deal!

Buttclenching?

Screechtastic?

Chipmunk-y?