I admit, I have only seen the show a couple times, usual liberal crap. However, I very much doubt the actress ever completed, if she even started, reading AS. She would know, however, that any 12 year old coming out of public schools is a socialist by brainwashing.
I think the "want. than have" comment was a was a lament that there was not enough socialism to please the lady.- and that everyone (except the politicians and actors) should have equal, while the rich liberals would continue to have what they want. That is utopia as Hollywood sees it.
Thank goodness I can tune out liberal actresses and actors, and watch old movies, FOX News or CMT. Old movies had people who were heroes, like Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable, John Wayne, and Gary Cooper.

The "destroy everything, cause civil unrest through violent disobedience" type. Popularized by the letter "A" in a circle, and wearing a "V for Vendetta" mask.

They were pretty popular for a while among young liberal miscreants, and followed closely by Law Enforcement. It was said the original "occupy" movement was suborned by this group...

The last line, by Paisley, "You should reread them!" I would say that is vote for.

Ya gotta love the "...the rich go out on strike" comment. Not "the producers", not "the people who do all the work", but rather "the rich". Might want to read the book again, lady...

As Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged,

“It meant nothing to him any longer, only a faint tinge of sadness--and somewhere within him, a drop of pain moving briefly and vanishing, like a raindrop on the glass of a window, its course in the shape of a question mark.”

I have heard that Ayn Rand's work was immature and simplistic for years. Of course, this was coming from immature and simplistic critics. What they actually cannot cope with are heroes who are truly heroes. Their protagonists must be deeply flawed and the flaws eventually destroy must them. They must be tragic figures that we should all be able to identify with because we are all just like them.

Critics use as an example that the majority of "Randoids" are young and have not experienced life, which is why her books appeal. Of course, in many cases the young have not been polluted by the negativity of other philosophies and are elated by heroes that are truly heroes. Besides, I can introduce you to at least two old Objectivists, me - 80 and my son- 54. So, there, you @#$%$#@!!!

OK, it was long. You knew what the ending was going to be from near the beginning, but the length added to the dramatic effect. It was painful, as in long suffering - kind of like how Francisco must have felt at having to blow up his own mines.

"Painfully long"?

Even negative advertising is advertising. I wish they would mention her every week. Maybe in the opening show of the next season a character will ask "Who is John Galt"

That's a great question. I have the feeling I've seen it somewhere (and loved it), but can't think where right now...

Yes, the concepts are so fundamental that any 12yr old, trying to find their own independence, can relate to them.

I'm not sure which "Anarchist movement players" you're referring to. Noam Chomsky is a liberal who says he wants anarcho-communism, but most advocates I've come across are in favor of anarcho-capitalism. Anarchy means "without rulers," and I think anarcho-communism is a bizarre contradiction in terms, since it would require rulers to decide who gives and who gets, and enforce the outcome.

I came across a video by Stefan Molyneux last night discussing this show, and defending Ayn Rand. He is a more typical anarchist, in my experience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeXblLS4l...

Isn't it amazing how long the liberals can maintain a facade of prosperity, honesty, integrity, transparency? It may be to us. Ayn Rand thought they could maintain such a facade for a very long time, or else Atlas Shrugged wouldn't have been so painfully long.

There were several prominent rich villains in the novel who pointedly did not go on strike (what could they stop doing?). The left's class warfare rhetoric about "the rich" substituting for the "productive" was no accident.

Neither was it an accident that the script misrepresented her novels as being about "blowing up buildings". An interesting plot twist and dramatization in The Fountainhead of a creator withdrawing what had been taken from him is not so subtly replaced with a stock misrepresentation of mindless violence as supposedly characteristic of Ayn Rand.

It snidely misrepresented Ayn Rand as writing about "blowing up buildings" and the "rich going on strike", and smeared her as a "twelve year old's view of the world" -- all said by the dominant character as a supposed answer to "read Ayn Rand". It was a gratuitous insertion of a snide misrepresentation, with no correction by any other character and having nothing to do with the plot of the show, just a dishonest and deliberate jab at the personal values of an articulate opposition to the left which must be repeatedly misrepresented as their "argument" against it. Yes, she is "getting to them" and this is the kind of cheap trick they exploit to try to stop people from listening to something they can't contend with.

Good wife, stupid thinker.

I note that the "Good Wife" character wrongly states that "the rich go out on strike."

Actually, it's "productive people" who strike.

Whether they are rich is quite secondary to the plot, but I suppose that this shallow character can't understand that production often leads to wealth.

ENVY of her now very visible success. How many authors can boast of book sales in the millions?

Now I feel justified in never having watched the show.

Thinking things will get better by giving handouts and "we should all just get along" is the 12-yr olds view.

I do to. Yes it is to bad that these people are so into the make believe that they bring it into the real world with them.

unfortunately Mr. Skerrit is also a prog. too bad. I really his acting.