BRG253

...or do you expect things to keep going downhill, and why

The girl is home schooled via the internet. She had to be withdrawn from public school over a year ago due to bullying. She is now isolated and has few friends in real life, but a literal army of followers on the internet.

This is a unique case unfortunately. The girl's life revolves around the internet.

This is a hypothetical situation. Suppose one discovers that his 15 year old daughter has been taking nude and semi-nude pictures of herself and posting them anonymously to a popular social networking website so that others can rate them, "like" them and reblog them. Her face is not in the pics and her identity is not attached to them in any way, but it would be obvious to anyone who knows her that they're hers. The owner of the blog to which she sends the pics is an adult man (21) and many of the people who view the pics are adult men of all ages. She used to be a very "good" girl but in the last year has matured a lot and is now becoming extremely sexual and acting like a dog in heat on the internet. Her internet life is the biggest thing in her ilfe and she has thousands of people who follower her on sites like Tumblr, YouTube and Twitter. Taking her computer away would crush her utterly. How would you deal with this if this was your daughter? SHOULD it be dealt with, or is this... harmless?

I've read that before and it's certainly concerning, but apart from his stance on abortion, I haven't seen his religiosity reflected in his platform or voting record to any significant degree. I've never heard him try to justify any policy (even abortion) on religious grounds. For the most part, he keeps his religion to himself, and has even said that he is uncomfortable discussing religion in the political arena. He is not a theocrat.

Apart from his stance on abortion, I don't see religion as being a major component of Ron Paul's platform and don't see him as a theocrat. He is the only man in politics who understands the cause of our economic problmes and the only one who will avert the economic calamity that I believe we are facing if we don't drastically change course soon. Gratned, I disagree with his stances on Iran and on Islam in general, but at this rate the U.S. won't have enough money to fight Iran even if we do eventually elect a leader willing to crush them. All things considered, I believe Dr. Paul is the best candidate. All the big-name candidates have major flaws and I don't see how he could be worse than Romney, Palin, or anyone else who has actually has a chance.

Great article. Thanks for posting that.

Stopped reading at the table of contents.

I just read an article in The New Yorker about the Koch brothers. The article is a thorough smear piece which portrays them as stealth saboteurs of the political establishment whose goal is to spread pro-capitalist propoganda and circumvent environemental laws to sell chemicals at a profit. In short, it demonizes them for things that should be considered virtuous. They must be outstanding men. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Does anyone else think black racial advancement is a major driving force in Obama's life?

Well, I think it's pretty exciting that some billionaires are forming a secret cabal of freedom fighters. Sounds like something straight out of Atlas Shrugged. To hell with the NYT piece.

I took Peikoff's advice and voted Republican. One of the candidates I voted for, Doug Cloud, is a Tea Partier who is not outwardly religious and is a fan of Ayn Rand (although Reagan said the same thing, so I certainly have my reservations). I don't think I'm going to tell anyone I voted.

In his book "Final Exit" Derek Humphrey told the story of a woman in her 60s who ended her life shortly after being diagnosed with Altzheimer's even though she was only in the early stages of the disease. She spent the last weeks of her life playing tennis, then committed suicide with barbiturates before her Altzheimer's could progress. She loved life too much to go down that road.

I think he abandoned any hope of the US retuning to lessaiz-faire capitalism during his lifetime and became a pragmatic social climber in the political and international financial worlds. He might have simply decided that he lives in a dog-eat-dog world and that he's better off on the stronger side. I'm sure he still has the same understanding of economics that he did when he was an Objectivist, even if he doesn't admit it.

I like to watch athletes perform more than I care about the outcome of team matches. I like to see people run fast, jump high, serve a tennis ball at 150 mph, etc. I don't care who wins the Super Bowl.

malicious malevolent bad natured

Life is all that you will ever be aware of. You can either try to enjoy it or you can be miserable.

Suppose I were to create a fictional internet persona who argues in favor of big government. I would make statements containing glaring contradictions in an attempt to expose the philosophical errors committed by statists. Basically, the goal would be to make the left look as stupid as possible without giving myself up and coming off as a troll. Is this a valid approach, or is it really just trolling?

In this interview with Lew Rockwell, Peter Schiff discusses Ayn Rand's influence on his life. He doesn't explicitly say he's an Objectivist, but indicates agreement with her philosophy. His discussion of Ayn Rand starts at about 2:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehdxjgM8TJ8&feature=sub

That song is one of the poorest diplays of Eminem's lyrical ability. But I agree, he is so creatively gifted that one can overlook his philosophical problems. Most talented artist in any genere in the last 10+ years.

I'm thinking about the ideological effects of a Republican congress. Even though the Democrats cause more direct damage to the economy, the Republicans may cause more intellectual damage by having control of the congress as the economy continues to worsen, thus making it easier for the public to blame the percieved "free market" or "trickle down" policies of the right. If further deterioration is inevitable, as Peter Schiff predicts, I would rather that Democracts were in power so that it would be clear to everyone that government is to blame. Thoughts?

Sorry, I have a tendency to hyperbolize. My anger toward my brother makes me want to go on a scathing rant every time I think about it. But this thread isn't about my brother, and I concede that not every drug addict in the world is necessarily as rotten as he is. I guess I should apply my comment to him specifically: I have no sympathy whatsoever for him and people like him. I certainly wouldn't view victims of PTSD or other medical problems the same way.

In her essay, "Apollo and Dionysus," Rand describes drug addiction among hippies as follows: source - http://www.noblesoul...faq.html#Q5.2.4 Having a meth addict sibling who is the absolute worst person I've ever seen, I agree with Ayn Rand's statement on the subject, and have no sympathy whatsoever for people who destroy their minds with drugs. Meth addicts are like mad dogs who need to be put down.

Good call. Thanks for the response.

I participate on a track and field forum where off-topic subject such as politics are often discussed. Unfortunately there is strong liberal presence there. I make reasoned arguments in favor of lessaiz-faire capitalism, but facts and logic simply have no effect on them. These arguments, more than anything else, have proven to me what liberalism is really about - hatred of the rich, of western civilization, of whites, etc. The things they say often disgust me to the degree that I can't continue reading their posts and have to leave the forum for days at time. My question is, am I doing anything good by arguing with these people? On one hand, it's clear to me that I can't force most them to think. On the other hand, I'm defending my values, probably frustrating them as much as they frustrate me, and there's a chance that someone else will read my posts and agree with them. Is it good that I argue, or a total waste of time?