Styles2112

The only real PC (I use Mac) I find myself playing (since most of my time is spent on GameCube) is America's Army. And since I suck at FPS games, with no real hope of getting better, I don't play terribly often. It is a fun game. I just wish that when I put 6 bullets into someone's body, they don't kill me with one shot to the head. Hmmm...I might play tonight, now.

RUSH- In particular Tom Sawyer- I mean, come on on the first beat you're hooked into that rhythm. "A modern day warrior, mean, mean stride, today's Tom Sawyer, mean mean pride!" This piece in itself, in all catagories trumphs both Stairway and Kashmir (particularly in the drumming dept, which happens to be MY specialty). Something for Nothing- Brilliant hard rock with Objectivist lyrics. What more could you possibly want? My sig comes from that piece. For your story telling ability- 2112 - Basically "Anthem (though, another good Rush song)" with a different ending. Seven sections, some following classical format, and Amazing lyrics (and "Acknowledgement to the genius of Ayn Rand."). Red Barchetta - A futuristic story about a time when individual rights are gone because of too many laws, and a young man who takes his Uncle's old, now illegal, car out for a drive and escapes the cops. The guitar riff in the beginning with the simple, yet beautiful, hi-hat rhythm just brings you into the story (or in the passenger seat.) "Losing It" - The keyboard and the violin at the beginning are so moving, I almost cry everytime I listen to it. Certainly makes me want to make the most of my youth. I think Neil Peart is probably THE best lyricist out there. He just knows how to put a string of words together like no one else, and then make them applicable to a musical piece. "The Trees" is a perfect example of perfect poetry made perfect lyrics. He's also not a half shabby drummer as well. Geddy Lee is one of the best bassists out there, and I'd definitely put Alex Lifeson up there with Jimmy Page in guitar ability.

Man, what a can of worms I've opened up. Just when I thought I was getting it, too. Ugh. Unfortunately, nowhere in anywhere else of that essay did Ayn Rand stipulate any excluding reasons for invasion and reconstruction (unless she did so at a later time, which she might have, for all I know). I agree with Knockout in the sense of, punish the criminals, not the slaves, but I'm also not sure how he achieved the logic of his last (sarcastic) post. Eh, nevermind, I'll just read more. Not like the opinions change anyways.

But, regardless of the initiation of force by another government, (as my take on that), any invasion we launch (such as Iraq) we are required to instate a free social system, because of the INDIVIDUAL rights of the "innocent" or "enslaved" people. It would seem that destroying an entire country (not just the government), would be an entirely new initiation of force, not morally justified (possibly immoral).

Honestly? I don't know. I don't know that things were as straight forward as they should have been. I won't say the the government lied to the people, but I do think they gave them the runaround on certain issues. They made it seem like one issue at a time (We're going in because they have WMD's, okay no WMD's but Saddam was a madman, okay we got him, but now we have to fight all the terrorists and get a foothold on the middle east). It felt like (media-wise) that had all the issues been made a solid case as opposed to individual instances, it would've been a stronger more American PEOPLE backed event. Unfortunately, the media has been allowed to spin it into another Vietnam which we lost BECAUSE of media, which is what I'm afraid of happening here. We are not the generation that won WWII or even Desert Storm. We knew that people would lose interest and support for a dragged out war. We (the Government) knew that from the get go, but did not get/use enough/accurate intelligence to set us right. There's more to war than just getting on a field and killing the other guy. There's politics, preparations, strategy, and (for our generation) media control. I don't think we did our job in ALL of those catagories and may very well, lose because of this (poor political maneuvering, loss of media support, which means loss of the American people's support). We did a great job getting to baghdad. That was an utter success (though, I half think that saddam just let it go KNOWING the futility that would follow, he was a much more cunning madman than many give him credit for). I also think we knew/know that we need MORE people over there (WITHOUT declaring war, which at this point we can't) to accomplish the mission (which is why international support would be needed, and at this point not given). I think this just sticks us between a rock and a hard place. Plus with Iran daring us to do something (and not real likely we'll declare war) we'll be stuck with three broken countries that we can't defend and rebuild (at least without International help or a complete restructuring of our political system). "A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights." -Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, "Collectivized 'Rights'", p104-105 *Bold emphasis mine

I just started reading the SECOND half of VOS (namely "Man's Rights" and "Collectivized 'rights'") and I now see where you're coming from and the logic behind it. And...I agree with the logic. However, in current situation, I still disagree with the practicality of it. But, that's just my opinion. Just wanted to let everyone know I got it.

I don't know, my mom is 5'11 and she grew up in Rhinelander (about 2.5 hrs northwest of Greenbay), though, I went to school with many short girls (about 40 minutes north of Milwaukee). I imagine, though, that much of the "tall" influence in Wisconisn is that German and Norwegian influence.

Outside of the terrible drums, I really liked "Mediocrity." The tone wasn't as smooth, but I suspect that was the site, and not the recording. I would love to do some drumming for you.

To answer the original Question, the character I most connected with was Wyatt (Atlas Shrugged). I liked (and resemble) how even when he lost he took it in stride and never resorted to the bitching and whining that the others did. He simply accepted his defeat realizing his better and moved on. I always took "Wyatt's Torch" as a symbol for all those who gave it their all and failed as being that much superior to those who never tried.

Even in that particular situation, why would anyone need to be shot? Why is shooting mothers and children even being brought up? Why do we assume that just because there is only enough water for "one." that all others must die BEFORE the water is drank? It may be that one person drank the water and will now just die 7 days after the other. I could be that they are able to find fresh water elsewhere (Saltwater is, somewhat, drinkable if strained through a shirt or other porous fabric). Seems kind of rediculous to me. We once had to do a thing in school just like this. Boat's sinking and you have one lifeboat that holds seven passengers and you have 10 people to save. They each have certain qualificatons (i.e. mother/doctor/child/lawyer). I got in trouble because I refused to do the assignment. What was funny about it too, was that you could not choose to stay with the sinking ship, you had to save yourself.

Despite the relatively easy rhythm, it's actually considered one of the hardest drum parts ever. The ability to raise dynamics so slowly and with perfect tempo is a feat not many can achieve.

Some interesting Articles on the subject. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...pr/summers.html http://www.sonshi.com/sun-tzu-terrorism.html http://www.sonshi.com/holmes.html http://www.artofwarsuntzu.com/1stChapter.pdf http://www.sonshi.com/militaryleader.html

"I'd like to buy the world a Styles." "Go on, get your Styles out" (Definitely a good one for a drummer!) "Have Styles your way." (What?!?!?!?) "I want my Styles." Mine isn't as conducive to cool phrases like the rest of yours.

After reading Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, and starting VOS, I was interested in finding more info on Objectivism, so I googled Ayn Rand and found several things, but namely this.

Which, I think, was a great idea. Well, I probably don't have the knowledge, or experience to suggest a full SOP, but I have, at least, one suggestion (related to the discussed example). I think it should be a requirement to have a mod PM the member with questioned posts to either: clarify a miscommunication on the part of the member (not all of us are brilliant with words and can sometimes say one thing and mean something COMPLETELY different) (This would also help the member feel more at ease in posting as the mods are willing to help CLARIFY issues as opposed to just banning and trashing members/posts that might be actually trying to learn/say something.), get a better judge of member's intent (in my case, I was trying to understand MY interpretation of Ms. Rand as opposed to other's with a certain issue, which lead to me being called an Anti-American Troll, which is something that I am not {Especially not the first one, and definitely not the last one}. I recieved no PM, or even a suggestion that I should discontinue the arguement/debate and was booted. Admin was kind enough to look at my case and reverse the decision, but it should have never come to that. If I had just been PM, saying that I was going against forum rules, and why, I simply would've dropped the argument/or changed my wording, and moved on.). If the PM is not responded to, or the situation is not resolved or worsened, then I think the mod THEN has the right/duty to either trash the post/ban the member (and even banning should be done on a documented three strike deal, or the like).

Which is more than I recieved when I did MUCH less. Which leads to the next point. This is somewhat the same problem I have at my work. I have some members of leadership who let anyone get away with anything, and those who over punish for minor things. I really enjoy reading a lot of the posts here, but I'm certainly intimidated to post here, as even when I post within the context of my knowledge of Objectivism/Ayn Rand (Or my reading of), I've had moderators insinuate stupidity or attacks, even on something that is subjective within Objectivism (i.e. based on personal heirarchy of values.) Now, I mainly "lurk," which is unfortunate (for everyone who feels that way) because I think there is a lot of intelligence, and a lot of people who have good things to say, and can say them in good ways, that I don't think we're getting enough out of, because of intimidation. My question, then, is: do the mods have a standard SOP (standard operating proceedure) to work of off, that says EXACTLY what, and what not to do? Or is it just general guidelines? I understand (being a moderator on different type of forum) that it can be quite difficult to separate a personal bias from a real issue, but we have (what I think is) a good list of exactly how the owner/admin wants it moderated. (Of course this may already be true here, but I'm not sure.)

Liszt was a little too much "sound" for me. While technically amazing, just too many notes in a small amount of space. Much like speed metal drumming, in my mind. Have to respect that kind of talent, though.

Time for me to get to Best Buy, then. They certainly have interesting album names. Of course, I'm still working on my King Crimson and Yes collection.

NOW theres an idea! You could market that and sell it. Just attach a laptop to the bike and wolah! You could be making MILLIONS. Just give it a catchy name, and you'll be all set.

Something I qualify under not asking anyone to sacrifice their life for me, as I will not sacrifice mine for others. But, that is my opinion based on my values. I'll put it this way, from the readings I have done on the culture over there and seeing the numbers of soldiers that are sent (or not sent) I believe this is a futile fight, and I also believe (and I'll stress PRACTICALITY again) that a conflict (since it's highly unlikely we'll declare war on IRAN, just as we did not declare WAR on Iraq, which explains the lack of numbers over there, and WHY we can't put more numbers over there) with Iran is not one that we'd win. They already have the media, and outside of declaring war (something we'll not likely do in this situation because of the political implications internationally) we will not have the man power to win that fight, and maintain occupancy of Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea. We would further push the Arabs from being our Allies (though, we might get some Iran haters, and receive some enemies of my enemies) and possibly push Europe to side with Iran whilst losing Britains support (I imagine they would remain neutral and not take a side at that point). Another quick point about Israel, since someone brought it up. Israel was able to win because of the backing they had from the U.S (Granted it was via the cold war, the point still remains). I don't think they would have managed it otherwise. I also think that the rest of the Arab world understimated their passion, believing that a show of force would make them back down. Such as our show of force in Iraq has not truly succeeded, that did not succeed as well. Anyways, I've placed my opinions in, what I think is, a thought out manner. I understand that some of you may disagree with them. That's fine, however, the insults directed here are really uncalled for, and to my knowledge, against forum rules. I do have a background in this area, which I believe qualifies me (to some level) to make that educated guess. Could I be wrong? Sure, but no more or less than the rest of you. So, please, show at least a LITTLE respect. I really enjoy reading most of everyone's posts here and I learn a lot (even when I disagree with something), I think some of the insulting is pretty needless, just because someone disagrees with you. Anyways, that's all I have to say, and I've had enough. Enjoy the rest of the thread.

I'll respond to this as the other posts have already been discussed before, and as always, we're not going to change our personal opinions. I agree, and I used the wrong term. Although, history will also show that Germany and Japan are pretty much our ONLY successful occupations/reconstructions. We could also look at a failed Afghanistan (prior to the current one) and several south American Bungles that ended up causing more enemies than friends. I agree, though that a PROPER occupation would benefit us more, but that is pretty much my entire argument (that people seemed to have missed), that we've gone about this wrong from the get-go. Occupations and reconstructions are not something to lightly mess around with and sacrificing OUR soldiers using OUR money was not the proper way to go about it. I REPEAT: I'M NOT ARGUING WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED IRAQ, I'M ARGUING HOW IT WAS DONE. No, I suspect that success would breed many friends. The problem we have is a lack of success which leads us to our current state. Which is why the whole "Vietnam" scenario is here. We have all the potential to win this war, but we're losing the media side of it. I do worry about Iran "daring" the US to invade them. They've played up the media quite well. However, as a member of the military and seeing just how it works over there AND over here, I'm not particularly confident in us taking on the whole of the Middle East. Anyways, I have to head to Tae Kwon Do, so I'll, more than likely, post more on this tomorrow.

I didn't say "any" I said "all" My point was not that "A" nation would stand up to us, but all EUROPE, Possibly even moreso would. That's true, however, my point was not annihiliation, but practicality and consequences. What do you think the consequences would be if we did such a thing? I suspect that we would be starting WWIII and WE would be viewed as the next Hitler's Germany (as countries are ALREADY painting us). So, you sacrifice other people for your own benefit is what you're saying. We'll go in and destroy the government and leave the anarchist state to destroy itself. I think America could do it at HOME. Israel was defending IT'S home, not spreading it's forces over a LOT of land to attack other proud cultures. Apples and Oranges. Luckily intelligence has kept us from doing that. *I've got to stop getting myself into these...

I guess, to add to this, I'm a bit overweight (only about 25 pounds or so), but I'm working on eating better (I'm amazed at how much certain foods I used to LOVE now taste horrible), though I'm not amazing at it. Part of the food issue (for me) is cooking better. Using more appropriate oils and styles of cooking. Plus cooking, in general, not only works the body, but also works the mind! Makes the food taste even better. Now the useless working out thing I can COMPLETELY understand. As a member of a military organization, I'm expected to maintain a certain weight (which I haven't, though I pass tape) and am expected to be able to accomplish certain tasks physically (i.e. 41 push-ups, 52 Sit-ups, and a two mile run in less than 16:37 -that's minutes:seconds ). Now, I hate working out, but I don't mind doing physical things (i.e. swimming, playing football etc.) Unfortunately, none of those things were available in my area, but I'd always wanted to learn Martial arts and found that to be a great way to work out. I now take Tae Kwon Do three times a week and I find that I feel GREAT afterwords. Not only is it a great workout, but it also is WORKING towards something other than exercise. It helps mentally too. Now granted I still struggle with the weight loss and the ability to run two miles, I'm getting much better and feeling much better about myself. Anyways, sorry for the personal tangent. On topic- Yeah, I really don't like groups like that either. At some point I think people just need to realize that their choices are their own and stop blaming everyone else for their issues.

I don't think they are, but regardless, I highly doubt we can prove to each other otherwise, so I will leave it at it's current point. Children only have some rights and are pretty much on the same intellectual level as animals.

How can you say that humans aren't animals? And your questions as to about killing and eating us, because they haven't yet (Don't know too many horses, rushing out there to kill us. Don't know too many domestic cats plotting our demise and most other wild animals flea from us and attack ONLY when provoked). It's funny, it's okay if WE eat them to further our lives, but it's not okay for them to eat us to further theirs. When it comes down to it, it's all the same. Your example is completely out of context. Not only did we take those animals out of their natural habitats and stick them in a cage, the possibility of them getting out (at least on a mass level) is highly unlikely. Beyond that, most of those animals will simply run away from people, and I'd imagine that there would not be a mass amount of deaths as you're suggesting. NOW, since you failed to read most of my posts, I will say I'm NOT advocating FULL "human" rights for animals, but that they should be allowed CERTAIN rights based on the Intelligence that they have. Just as an animal has the right to kill to protect itself or it's species, humans have a right to kill to protect themselves or it's species, so in your flawed example, we, of course, would be forced to put down any animal that was threatening humans. (which would wouldn't even need to do anyways, because of tranquilizors. {sp}) However, I am against useless killing of animals purely for sport (as my Dad always told me, you can't kill it unless you plan to eat it), and the way we mass kill animals for food. I think it could be more humane. You, however assume that animals are no better than rocks (which in my mind is the ignorant thing). I'm not a vegetarian. You're presupposing many things about me that you should not. You're taking the idea way too far. Number one, those oxen get paid for their work in the form of shelter and food. If the oxen truly did not want to work, it would not (as there are several animals that make that CHOICE). Accidental deaths are not a factor here (another out of context example), if that we're true, there'd be no car use for people because people get killed by cars. For someone who, I find, generally writes very good arguments in other threads, you've been nothing but insulting ("ignorant") and out of context for your last couple posts in this one. You again think that I'm advocating FULL rights for animals, which I'm not. I'm simply saying that they have enough intelligence, and what I'D consider volition to warrant CERTAIN rights. No, I don't believe in animal testing. As far as I'm concerned, if I come down with a horrible disease (unless they come up with cure without sacrifice) too bad for me. I've no interest in sacrificing further life (human or animal) just for mine (That is somewhat emotional, but it is also based on MY VALUES, it is not something I expect you to accept). I'm willing to bet a bear would not want to live in my house, so another off the wall example. We're not harming sheep by removing their wool. In fact, it actually helps them and is beneficial. Caribou will change their migration pattern, and live, no biggy. Anyways, I apologize for even beginning to argue about this, as I understand this is against forum rules. I have no intention of spreading or introducing ideas contrary to Objectivism. While I agree with many/most of the points of Objectivism, this is one that I disagree with. I'd argue with you in the debate area, if you wish, but I will not do so here anymore.