Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ArmyPatriot

  1. You guys are all talking shenanigans about this issue. Obama Signs Executive Order Barring the Release of his Birth Certificate The above link is a concise synopsis of all the relative arguments. You will find that on January 21st, Obama signed Executive order #13489 which in very technical wording does exactly as the title of the article assures. Check out the link to the order yourself. Not suspicious enough for you? The World Net Daily (plenty of links in the article) has been following the birth certificate issue for over a year now. It would be who you to realize the difference between a Certificate of Live Birth AND a long for Birth Certificate. And finally to those of you providing the philosophical argument that "What does it matter if it was or wasn't?" I will give you some lasting advice that I wish you to take to heart in that BIG GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. And also you could read Obama's Science Czar John Holdren's Eugenics textbook from the 70's Eco Science ... and I sight foxnews here only because you should immediately see that it's in the mainstream and therefor actually much more expounded upon in the alternative media.
  2. This is good news! .... Let's just hope that this country actually makes it to the election next year!
  3. Hey Wrath, Sometimes we need to learn from the pros.... There's a whole community out there call the "Seduction Community" that revolves around picking up girls. Hold on though, it's not all just superficial BS... If you start looking there are a zillion production available over the internet the delve into this sort of thing. Look for David Deangelo's Deep Inner Game. It's a video seminar course that's all about being a man and not just that, but a respectful man that makes his own decisions and knows what he wants. Incidentally, it turns out that this is precisely what drives women crazy. This program is easily found for sale on the internet and also on the torrents. I watched this program about 4 years ago and I must say that it definitely put me further on the right path as now I am happily married. I met my wife just over two years ago now, I proposed to her after two months, and recently we've just celebrated our first year anniversary. We're happy as can be. Now, let me tell you about the success of it all-- HONESTY! ... that and having that deep inner game (security). The thing was that when I met her there was none of that up front BS that you typically run into. We just had fun and we were honest with each other about everything. (Radical Honesty by Brad Blanton is a great book as well). Either way, the trick to finding someone that your going to be happy with is to just be real with them. Yes, the time will come where you should make your decision about which one you want, but by no means should you have to hide another friend that's a girl from the other one. Be honest with them... and there's no rush to sleep with them! Some of the best sex that you ever might find will be until you have held out as long as physically possible and by this point you will have decided which one you really want to be with, so then if she's on the same page go for it! Don't be afraid to tell them about you... be honest and if you respect them, they will respect you in return. ... and check out that Deep Inner Game! Best of luck! Chris
  4. Metaphorically speaking Burgess. Thou shall go forth and kick ass!
  5. Taken from THIS address. Take heed and ask questions. MORAL ARMOR'S Economic Warning for Americans For years we've suffered under recession, prompting us to ask, When will it end? My answer is, "It's only the beginning." Historically, recessions are the result of high interest rates, pushed up as the result of loose money policies. Recovery comes when citizens begin to spend more wisely, save money and pay off their debts, but not this time. Never before have credit policies been so loose for so long, and there has been no decrease in consumer debt. Its still on the rise, but Americans are NOT fundamentally to blame; immoral monetary policy is. Banks used to consider a safe loan applicant to have a 36% or less Debt to Income Ratio (debt divided by gross income). This percentage is a time-proven figure indicating the financial health of an individual. Now, during the worst economy in twenty years and with no signs of recovery, our banks gladly loan to applicants with a 56% Debt to Income. What has changed? Are banks suddenly more generous? I don’t think so. One good question to ask is, Why are banks willing to accept the additional risk? But the real question to ask is, Where is this money coming from? Not one in a thousand Americans knows the true nature of our banking system, so they have no idea that what happened in 1929 is about to happen again. Nor do they know that it was done deliberately then, and is being done deliberately now. We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions known to Man, and I refer to the Federal Reserve. Since its inception in 1913, every dollar created has interest being paid on it as if it were borrowed. This debt cannot be extinguished without destroying the currency itself, and has spawned a nightmare of debt that presently amounts to over $360 Billion in interest paid per year, accounting for half the personal income tax of the nation. Due to this, America is forced to create $7 Billion daily to cover the $1 Billion it pays in interest daily due to the Federal Reserve System. This is where the public comes in. Federal Reserve bankers have to find a way to spend $6 Billion every day while masking the inflation it causes. Throughout the nineties it was done through real estate and the stock market. Now it is almost exclusively being put into real estate. How on Earth could so many mortgage companies be offering interest only, no money down, multi-hundred thousand or million dollar loans with high applicant debt ratios? Here is a hypothetical example of what’s going to happen: Your mortgage banker tells you that with a 56% debt ratio, you can afford a $300,000 home, no money down. You secure the loan at 4%, costing $1432 per month. A few years later, you’re thrown out of work for three months. Back payments amount to $4296 plus late fees, legal fees, etc., and another $5k on cars, credit cards and everything else. Unable to catch up, you’ll try to refinance, but interest rates have moved up to 7%. A $310,000 loan now costs $2062 per month-- more than you can afford, but banks will have tightened lending policies back to 36% and you no longer qualify for the home you own anyway. Accounting for all other debt, you now qualify for a shocking $360 per month. You are trapped, and the new bankruptcy laws they pushed for will never let you walk away. You owned this home in a perfect numbers scenario, but any complications-- unemployment, salary reduction, interest rate increase, debt ratio change, bruised credit rating, depressed home values--and you’re cooked. One mishap and every financial measure works against you. Your financial angel has suddenly become your greatest enemy. Welcome to the Federal Reserve System and their freshly engineered worldwide depression. If you were to approach the housing market fresh, you would find that you only qualify for a $55k house now, along with the market of buyers you were hoping to unload your balloon-house on. The bank forecloses, auctions it off and you’re personally responsible for the difference, which could be massive. Bankruptcy is right around the corner, and deplorably, you are the only one who will be held accountable. You will then be a debt slave as the Federal Reserve intends, and game over. My advice is to get as financially stable as you can. Mathematically, our situation is much worse than that of the Great Depression. No matter how generous these bankers appear, pare down monthly outlays to 36% D/I or less. Set aside three to six months of mortgage payments in case you become unemployed. Make sure you can ride out the storm. We are coming to a point in American society to where its either them or us, and mass awareness is the key to our survival. Most believe the Federal Reserve is a part of the government, but its just a name. The Fed is a private corporation set up for private gain, with a dark history of stock market crashes, financial panics, political manipulation and ultimately, mass poverty and hunger riots. Our struggle is not new: currency control has switched from public to private hands EIGHT times since our country’s inception, and needs to be reclaimed by the people, one last time. Don’t think you can play helpless and expect our political leaders to protect you from financial calamity; they never have. You must become Morally Armed on your own. Don’t be coaxed into believing the system is optimized for the good of all. The Federal Reserve System is not an equitable institution, and it was never intended to be. They believe if they have us strung out on debt, we are no threat to them. Let us prove otherwise. Currency reform is the most important issue facing Americans today. How it plays out will determine whether you and your children eat or not, whether you have a place to live or even a future to look forward to. The major media will ridicule anyone speaking against the Fed, so to validate history’s greatest moral dilemma for yourself, just google "Jackson bank veto." America must abolish the Federal Reserve System to regain control over the economy and our government. For a concise history of world monetary policy and how it shapes world events, see Moral Armor. Then share this knowledge with your friends. Email this article to everyone in your address book and stay tuned for further developments. Well change the system together and bring a brighter dawn to Mankind. (Removed ALL CAPS titles)
  6. Ah, I see... so he gave up a beautiful San Francisco skyline, maybe a little Golden gate bridge, for the nude male figure. I see... Just kidding Cole, he's got a good pose going on.
  7. Right on the money Ken. I would say that it is 100% justified. What's the point of living if you're not going to enjoy it (and the rush). Granted, it might be taken out of hand at times. But that goes back to taking a caculated challenge and not a mindless risk.
  8. The very premise that some of our parents have lied to us in an attempt to "shield us from the 'evil'" is precisely the root of our difficulty concretizing an all encompassing "life philosophy". Just think about how much easier your life would have been if your parents would have told you the objective truth (pros and cons) when it comes to everything that they have experienced. Think of the time you could have saved! Stop lying to your damn children!! Ahhhhhh... Likemindedness. Good Christ! What kind of beast of satan came with this ordinance!? One chip on free speech and the first ammendment and the next thing you know the whole damn thing is going straight to hell! It's the same thing as with all the "indecency" garbage their trying to pass!
  9. Keith, Sorry to dissapoint your wife, but K2 was summited by the American-- Heidi Howkins-- in the year 2000, without oxygen. Like that matters; as with any mountain, the best thing about climbing is that when it comes down to it, it's just you and mountain. Mountineering, just like anything "extreme", is a means of celebrating life and being alive. Another way of experiencing the more pleasurable sensations available to man. The happiness from mountineering is of course partially from achievment. The climb itself, the spectacular views, and the danger itself relate to these experiences, and thus, are pleasurable in themselves. Here's a quote I like from Heidi speaking of her climb on K2. "....I thus climbed serenely, secure in the fact that whatever I achieved on this enchanted mountain, just setting foot on her slopes would be enough to make her part of my life forever." The bottom line is that your happiness is going to come from your achievments and these experiences. Eventually you might get exhausted on your path to achievment So at these times, take a break. These experiences will serve an escape. Not an escape from reality, but rather an escape to life. It works as a replenisher to invigorate you for another round. As hangnail eventually concluded, partially, when it comes to these experiences (and achievment for that matter), the sky is the limit. Just don't do anything stupid enough to get yourself killed.
  10. Precisely Rational One. Any man (or woman for that matter) that has respect for the truth doesn't ask a question if he or she doesn't want to know the truth. The truth makes no exceptions. If I want to know something, that would be the reason I ask a question: to find out the truth. The simple situation of someone lying to me on my death bed just seems utterly mind-boggling as to why they think I would actually want them to lie to me. If they did lie to me about something, it wouldn't make me "happy". My happiness does not come from other people and whatever they might happen to be doing with their lives. It might get, what.... a smile out of me? Who cares! I'ld be dead soon anyways!
  11. Good Christ! Felipe, Rational One, at least you guys know what's going on. I swear these other guys will be the end of me. One day I'm just going to read something that one of them posted... then "AAHHH!!!" And in one swift, firm yank I'm going to rip my eyeballs out.
  12. This clip was in yesterday's TIA Daily. I thought I would post it after I got such a good laugh out of it, and I guess that not everyone is a subscriber. 4. The Pope's Contradiction This is the only article I have seen that highlights a peculiar contradiction in the events surrounding the death of Pope John Paul II. His death came on the heels of the Terri Schiavo case, which was fueled largely by John Paul II's own statements that life in a persistent vegetative state must be preserved at all costs. Yet the pope himself in his last days refused medical treatment that could have extended his life. http://tinyurl.com/6haa4 "Pontiff's Choice Was to Die Simply," Sebastian Rotella and Jeffrey Fleishman, LA Times, April 4 "John Paul's final hours, as described by doctors, churchmen and sources close to his inner circle, did not include aggressive efforts to revive him as his organs failed. No kidney dialysis machine was used in his apartment, and the insertion of a sophisticated feeding device in his stomach would have required a return to the hospital, sources said. Instead, doctors said, they relied mainly on antibiotics and a respirator.... Like many gravely ill people, the pope preferred to face death at home, not in the fluorescent glare of a hospital. His choice, according to a source close to papal aides, also reflected his keen awareness of church history and ritual: Popes die in the Vatican. That determination and the ensuing medical choices were consistent with church teaching about not prolonging life at all costs, according to theologians. 'He just didn't want to go to the hospital for a third time,' said Gerald O'Collins, a professor of theology at Gregorian University in Rome. '! What would have happened if he had gone back? Aggressive treatment that might have kept him alive a few more weeks, but there's no moral obligation to accept this.' Nonetheless, the pope himself appeared to complicate the issue last year when he declared that the feeding and hydration of critically ill patients was in fact a moral obligation. He said that such treatment constituted a 'natural act' for patients such as Schiavo who were in vegetative states or comas. As the church struggles to keep its ethical teaching apace with strides in medical technology, the pope's statement surprised some theologians. They read it as a sign the church was moving toward an endorsement of extraordinary measures as opposed to previous doctrine stipulating a lesser threshold of reasonable efforts to save the lives of the severely ill. Indeed, Schiavo's parents, seeking to reinsert her feeding tube, cited the pope's views in legal papers." These kind of observations are typical of the TIA Daily. Precisely why anyone who calls themself an Objectivist should be a subscriber.
  13. Here is the article you are referring to. It's from a couple days ago, I forgot that I saved it because it was such a good article. All due credit to Robert Tracinski and the TIA Daily. TIA Daily Feature Article 9. Who Decides Why the Law Worked in the Terri Schiavo Case by Robert Tracinski There is one last aspect of the Terri Schiavo case that I have not discussed in much detail, and about which I am still getting some interesting questions. That is the legal and philosophical question of who should have the right decide whether to remove hydration and nutrition in a case like that of Terri Schiavo. If you have been listening to the conservative press on this issue, you have heard two blatantly wrong descriptions of who has made the decisions in this case. Some have said that it is the government that decided to "kill" Terri Schiavo. This is their way of trying to square their religious crusade with a belief in small government; they are allegedly standing up for Terri Schiavo's rights against an oppressive government. Others (and sometimes the same people) say that it is her husband who decided to "starve her to death"--and then go on to a general campaign of character assassination against Michael Schiavo. Both of these claims are outright lies. I call them "lies" because the truth on this matter is easily available, in the basic documents of the case, as a matter of public record. No one who makes a living by reporting or commenting on political controversies can claim ignorance as an excuse. The law on this matter is unambiguous. The person who had the primary right to decide Terri Schiavo's case was Terri Schiavo. She was, of course, unable to speak for herself after suffering massive brain damage--but she was able to speak on this issue beforehand, and it was evidence about the wishes she expressed prior to her brain damage that was decisive in this case. Note that Judge Greer did not rule on what *he* wanted to happen to Terri Schiavo. His ruling concerned the evidence about what Terri Schiavo wanted. This is not just a proper function of government; it is *the* proper function of government: it consists of enforcing the principle of individual rights by deciding whose rights were at stake in this case and what would constitute the exercise of those rights. You may also have heard from conservative commentators that, in Ann Coulter's words, "Judge George Greer...determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband." You may have heard this so often, from so many people, that you assumed it must be true. But it is another lie. Judge Greer explicitly concluded that he could not rule on Terri Schiavo's intentions based solely on her husband's testimony. He ruled, instead, that Michael Schiavo's testimony was corroborated by multiple other witnesses whose statements were consistent and reliable. The testimony related to statement made by Terri Schiavo to members of her family after the funeral of her husband's grandmother, who had been kept alive in her final days on artificial life support. According to several people who were present at the conversation, Terri said that she would not want to be kept alive on artificial life support. This evidence has been referred to derisively by conservative commentators as "hearsay," which is meant to make it seem unreliable and insubstantial. Here a little legal background helps. According to the online legal dictionary at http://dictionary.law.com, "hearsay" is "second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her." (http://tinyurl.com/6earu) The idea is that you are testifying, not to what you saw, but to what someone else said they saw. Direct testimony would be "I saw Smith shoot Jones"; hearsay testimony would be "I heard Davis say he saw Smith shoot Jones." This is unreliable, since Davis is not testifying directly, so there is no way to judge the credibility of his alleged statement. But that doesn't quite apply to this case, because the Schiavo relatives who testified about Terri's statements *did* directly observe the facts to which they were testifying: they directly heard Terri state her intentions about what she wanted to happen if she became permanently incapacitated. In fact, these considerations are covered under the "hearsay rule." Hearsay testimony is normally inadmissible--except in a number of long-recognized exceptions, at least three of which seem to apply in this case: "a statement which explains a person's future intentions ('I plan to?.') if that person's state of mind is in question"; "a statement made about one's mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available--most often applied if the declarant is dead ('my back hurts horribly,' and then dies)"; and "a statement about one's own will when the person is not available." (http://tinyurl.com/3vnq4) Thus, this testimony is described in a 2003 report by her "guardian ad ! litem"--a legal guardian appointed to represent the legal interests of an incapacitated adult--as "admitted hearsay." The word "admitted" means that it is hearsay testimony that was ruled to be legally admissible in court. There is one other important legal point here. A great deal of weight is also given, legally, to a spouse's decisions. The spouse is granted the right to make life-or-death decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person, even when there is no evidence about the person's stated intentions. And this is entirely proper. Some people have complained that Terri Schiavo's husband was allowed to make such decisions rather than her parents. But the reason for this is so simple and straightforward that it is expressed in a formula I have heard numerous places: you choose your spouse, but you don't choose your parents. Because you choose your spouse, it is logical to assume that this person is the most likely to share your considered, adult values. Indeed, most of us disagree with our parents on some important issues--and we can still love our parents even if we disagree with them on important moral or religious issues. But we would probably not marry a person with whom we had the same disagreements. (Much has been made of the fact that Michael Schiavo has since formed a relationship with and fathered children by another woman--ignoring the fact that he did so *after* concluding, in 1994, that Terri had no hope of recovering.) The normally stated reason is good enough. But there is also another reason to give the power to a spouse in this case, rather than the parents. Your spouse came to know you and love you when you were a fully formed, functioning adult. Your parents, however, loved you when you were a helpless infant. Thus, parents are uniquely susceptible to the emotional pull of wanting to maintain your life when you are reduced back to such a helpless state--even if, as in this case, the "childlike" state is an illusion produced by reflexes rather than a childlike consciousness. I don't think my parents would fight to keep me on artificial life support if I were in Terri Schiavo's condition. But I know that I would prefer that the decision be made by my wife, because she is not subject to the temptation of those parental emotions and could more clearly keep in mind my own intentions. (Future judges take note: my own choice would be to be allowed to die--and I believe that counts as an unambiguous "declaration of intent.") Even a loving parent, however, can eventually overcome any initial emotional reaction and restore the wider context. Parents may fondly remember caring for their child as a helpless infant--but the wider context is that the purpose of their child's life was not to *remain* a helpless infant. A parent's purpose in caring for a child is to help it grow to become, not merely conscious, but an independent, functioning adult--and they should regard it as an unacceptable tragedy for their child to be maintained in the irreversible state of a sub-infant, which is precisely what happened to Terri Schiavo. And that speaks to the motives of Terri Schiavo's parents. Whatever their motives for keeping her alive, it cannot be out of any rational conviction that they are doing so for *her* benefit. They are doing it for their own distorted idea of what benefits *them*. I can't say for certain whether it is to prop up their own subjective religious fantasies about a miracle cure, or to show their own loyalty to Catholic religious dogmas--or, as I suspect, that they get some value out of playing the role of the long-suffering parents of a religious martyr. For a Catholic woman named "Mary," who is told from a young age that she should emulate the mother of Christ, such a role might well be irresistible. Be that as it may, the legal issue here is that Terri Schiavo's parents do not get to decide whether she lives or dies. The loud conservative claims that they should have such a power is, in effect, a declaration that no child ever grows to adulthood and acquires the right to make adult choices--that such adult choices, including the choice of a spouse, do not override the parents' perpetual right to control the lives of their children. All of this brings me to the reason I am so passionate about this case. This case is an example of how the American legal system still functions brilliantly, in many areas, to apply and enforce the principle of individual rights. The more I dig into the details, the more I discover that everything has been done properly in this case: the courts have differentiated clearly between the testimony of scientists and that of charlatans; they have correctly identified whose rights are involved and who has the proper power to make decisions; they have correctly applied the rules regarding evidence about Terri Schiavo' intentions. And in reward for these virtues, the courts have been vilified from both the right and the left. The courts have done one more thing that is not merely right, but heroic. They have stood their ground amid this a storm of threats and slander and defended the integrity of the judicial process. Here is a crucial passage from a recent news article, at http://tinyurl.com/6bsgq, about the court's final rejection of yet another irrational legal motion from Terri Schiavo's parents: "The 11th Circuit court's decision, signed by Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson, was only a sentence long. But in a concurring opinion, Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., appointed by the first President Bush in 1990, wrote that federal courts had no jurisdiction in the case and that the law enacted by Congress and President Bush allowing the Schindlers to seek a federal court review was unconstitutional. " 'When the fervor of political passions moves the executive and legislative branches to act in ways inimical to basic constitutional principles, it is the duty of the judiciary to intervene,' wrote Judge Birch, who has a reputation as consistently conservative. 'If sacrifices to the independence of the judiciary are permitted today, precedent is established for the constitutional transgressions of tomorrow.' "Judge Birch said he had not had time before now to consider the constitutionality of the law.... In particular, Judge Birch wrote, a provision of the new law requiring a fresh federal review of all the evidence presented in the case made it unconstitutional. Because that provision constitutes 'legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions,' he wrote, it 'invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle.' "David J. Garrow, a legal historian at Emory University who closely follows the 11th Circuit, said Judge Birch's opinion was striking because the judge was a conservative Republican, especially regarding social issues.... 'This is a Republican judge going out of his way to directly criticize the Congress and President Bush for what they've done,' Mr. Garrow said. Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at Duke University, said Judge Birch probably felt it important to address the constitutionality of the law because the opportunity might never arise again. 'When Terri Schiavo dies, this law expires because it was only about her,' Mr. Chemerinsky said. 'This raised an important constitutional issue that could come up again, and he's saying it's important that some judge be on the record about it.' " It is very important indeed, and we may be thankful that we have judges willing to do so.
  14. My bad Rational One, I didn't think there would be any confusion that I was referring to Rdenoncourt. I should have specified.
  15. Robert Tracinski writes outstanding articles and I have yet to disagree with anything I hear him say. The TIADaily is only $74 a year. Buy a damn subscription. Furthermore, when you read an article on a subject and for some reason you feel the urge to write a short article losely along the lines of that same subject. Don't say anything unless it hasn't been said yet, and if it hasn't, then it should still be something that is actually worth talking about! Should we be paying for her to be kept alive? HELL NO! Not like it matters though; the religious right saw to it that the doctor's insurance company coughed up $300,000 to pay for the 15 years that she's been dead. First of all, learn the pertinent facts. Then, if you still do decide to write the article, write it in a logical fashion. Stop rambling around in the circles of your ill-contrived thought process. And go buy that damn subscription!
  16. A guy like Greenspan isn't going to change. That is one thing about Objectivists in general; the philosophy makes so much sense eventual it all becomes a moral conviction. It would be my best guess that he still remains true to his beliefs as he keeps the board in check the best that he reasonably can. He has to watch his mouth very carefully, namely when it comes to destroying the centralized bank, because otherwise they will kill him just like everyone else who tried to do so, with the exception of Andrew Jackson. Money was- and is- funnelled to Nazis and now terrorists easier than you would think. An even simpler way to look at it: the act was passed in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson (hmm... see also: graduated income tax; federal trade comission... a moron? I think so). Notice 1: What happened when they started playing with their power in 1929; 2: the stability of our economy ever since; And 3: Let's see here. The oldest inflation data dates back to 1914. What cost 9.9 CENTS in 1913 cost $1.82 in 2003. The US Dollar was created in 1785; so that's 128 years with virtually no inflation, followed by 90 years with an overall markup of roughly 1800%. Well, at least America should be the richest counrty in the world.
  17. His Father was a solid business man and the only thing that Donald recieved him was his education, both real life knowledge and actual schooling. After that he expanded his business from scratch until he fell billions of dollars into debt. He didn't quit, worked his way back out of the hole, and now he leaves no exceptions for the quality of his estates. As far as his reputation for using eminent domain, everything I find is slanted reporting that avoids the cold hard facts of the deal. Like I said, his books have great business advice and incite; and for that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to slander in his direction. Even if there is some truth to this slander, he still stands as a man that any business man can learn a lot from.
  18. The price of US Dollar, as well as inflation, is indirectly, though accurately controlled through the reserve. I cite my post here. All this is not something that anyone should go around blabbing about. They are a very powerful organization.
  19. Donald Trump is the first real-life guy that I've learned about that is comparable to the likes of Hank Rearden. He's a self-made man from the start. Who cares if he is an Objectivist or not; here is a guy that we can all take some valuable advice from. Read his books.
  20. He was appointed chief of the board in 1987 by Ronald Reagan. The structure is complicated. He is head of the other 6 members in the Board of Governors. Alongside the 9 directors of the banks. What if the whole board is the most evil institution to infiltrate into America? What if there were one man of good intention that managed to assume the highest possible position to keep the organization in check? What if these 9 directors manipulated the system to do their bidding as they print off an unlimited supply of money at the expense of all Americans? What would these people then be able to do if they bought their way into the CIA? What if the real situation at hand is 10x worse than this? Do some research.
  21. Right on Roark, 3 doors down isn't bad at all. I would have to say that my favorite band is Metallica. Number one, the energy you can draw from their music is great. On top of that, the skill level in their music is superior to just about everyone around. And most importantly is the lyrics. It takes time to understand what the songs are about which is because none of it is just simple. The more songs I understand, the more I see that James shares many of the same aspects for a masculine view of life that I have grown to live. Anyone who says that they only like the "old" Metallica only listens to music superficially. They never understood the driving force beneath the music which is the most part. Metallica, old, new, fast, slow- I love it all.
  22. ArmyPatriot

    Ancient World

    I should have stressed more that I was referring to ancient history. What you are listing are principals that have been discovered in the past that still hold true today. Sure I'm interested in these prinicpals because most of them have solid application in their respective fields for any task I might encounter. It can be a little interesting to about these developments; but is this knowledge going to put a steak on my dinner plate tonight? Unless I'm a teacher- not a chance.
  23. ArmyPatriot


    Let's say it like this: The desire for sex builds up eventually to the point where there becomes a need to release it. It works the same way anger and aggression do; if you keep it built up inside you for long enough it will sooner or later lead to mental problems. It's not healthy to keep it built up inside. I believe I'll be the first one to say this forum so... Hear, Hear! Masturbation is a completely moral act so long as it promotes my sexual health, releases that built up tension, and given that I am thinking about only the purest of thoughts as I do so!
  24. I read part of "Till We Have Faces" a couple months ago. All I could think for the 150 or so pages that I read was "What is this fantasy world ridiculous shit!? I can't believe I'm wasting my time with this!" Finally I put the book down not even half way through. Went and picked up some non-fiction on psychology- had a blast.
  25. It's too easy not to be a hack or a second-hander. Don't steal other people's ideas. Put forth your best effort in whatever you are doing. Remember that accepting handouts isn't going to make you happy. Work on tough objectives the smart way and you will earn your wealth every step of the way. That is one of the primary sources of happiness.
  • Create New...