WGD

The media is reporting the age of the info concerning the orange alert in NYC, N NJ, and DC as if that's proof it's a political ploy. From the NewYorker concerning the Madrid attack. "In June, Italian police released a surveillance tape of one of the alleged planners of the train bombing, an Egyptian housepainter named Rabei...Ahmed, who said that the operation "took me two and half years." Ahmed had served as an exposives expert in the Egyptian Army. It appears that some kind of attack would have happened even if Spain had not joined the Coalition--or if the invasion of Iraq had never occurred."

Robert Traninski has start writing a weekly syndicated column again. www.TIADaily.com, then click picture lower right.

He is the guard behind the desk. I went back and saw it again. If you are looking for him, the hand and back of the neck look darker. The face in the glass looks like him and Areactor is right about the voice. OR you can wait for the credits and see his name next to "guard behind the desk."

Your right. Do you think he was in one of the pictures in the "memory boxes?" Other then that, I can't think of where he was.

Wasn't he the boss of the security guard? You only saw his reflextion in the glass.

AP at 3:45pm est at Drudge: under Kerry in favor of US OBL Trial. ""We broke relationships by rushing to war without allowing our allies to work through their own politics and their own reservations so they could come to the table, support it," he said. "That is a breach of common sense about how you take a nation to war.""

Cox & Forkum has a good cartoon on this subject at their site. www.coxandforkum.com for July 3oth.

No. Bush has said he'll preempt an attack. That has been the whole Democrat-Bush debate on starting war. Now you can say he won't do it again but that's a different argument.

He said he'll stay the course and help is on the way. But didn't he imply that the soldiers in Iraq are risking their lives for a mistake, when he talked about it being optional.

Kerry's key line was, "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Which means-I'll will wait until alot of Americans are killed and then I'll show them, if the UN say its OK.

The Democrates still blame America for 9-11. They want to show how they will protect us, but in the end the arguments come down to "how will we change so they won't attack us." "Kerry will bring back the respect the world had for us."

Even "judge not" groups like TOC are having problems with how odd the libertarians are. Could you give a few examples of ARI's false statements about the Libertarian Party. Does this mean you think the Libertarian Party is anarcho-capitalism or not? The but in your last sentence implies that anarcho-capitalism is not for limited government. So are you voting for the Libertarians because their against your ideas?

Doesn't the first sentence contradict your whole argument? The second sentence doesn't make any sense. How would you safe guard freedom just by not voting?

Does Hans-Hermann Hoppe still teach at the Univ. of Las Vegas? He's in the U.S. somewhere, so how does this clown explain the wealth of America and the history of it's increase? Frederick the Great drafted men in huge armies and raised taxes through the roof. The Glorious Revolution was glorious because the the monarchy was replaced with a new one by political and military segments of the country.

See www.fumento.com/disease/aidsstats.html or www.iht.com/articles/102336.html

Based on Duesberg's research, your second paragraph is correct if you change the first word to AIDs. He says HIV isn't connected with AIDs and you won't die from HIV, but he thinks the AIDs diseases are real. He thinks they won't find "A cure" but should work on each of the sub diseases. The numbers in Africa are skyrocketing because if you fall out a window they say you died of AIDs, because that brings in more international aid.

My post is right above. How can someone mischaracterized:"ARI had a panel... Toc had a panel..." for an entire conference. Toc said the whole break with ARI was about ... wait for it ...libertarians. And now they want to get away from it. You down play an article on Ayn Rand's epistemology in a top philosophy journal and act like its an everyday thing.

This is the first post. The first quote is from Bininotto and the second quote is from Perigo, who was on the panel. The second post of this tread has a link to Perigo's article. See if my discription is taken out of context-a panel about toc-objectivists dropping the term libertarian because of groups like lewrockwell.com, pro or con. Please give some evidence that Perigo lied about the panel. You were there.

That's what you said. Lindsay Perigo comments about the the panel he was on are the basis for the beginning of the tread. Please give some evidence about how Perigo lied about the panel. You were there.

Please give some evidence about how Lindsay Perigo lied about the panel. You were there.

Your frustration comes from your anger at being wrong about Fred Miller, SPP, kelley, etc. Your "patent facts" are just fantasies and you just can't face reality. Now your implying Lindsay Perigo is lying about the panel he was on?

Like most of what you said, the link to Mack's site is wrong. That's the Tulane philosophy depts site. When I went to his info at the Murphy Institute of political economy(under facultyand staff) all his personal stuff was gone. Since he's still at the school, I will track down the info. If I misinterpted his views, then I'm wrong. But he still does NOT call himself a neo-randian (what ever that is) in the interview you linked. If you read the interview, he thinks the libertarians are falling back not going forward in the academia. Thinking anyone really cares enough to make up anything about Mack makes you look like a fool. PS. Miller and SPP are still not neo-randian or associated with kelley.

He's not and its not neo-Randian(what ever that is). None! Good answer No & academic???? What is that?? Did he channel her? SPP is not associated with kelley now and published when, oh 1984. Thats what you meant. And it wasn't me you said it to. You have lied about so many things I don't think you know what integrity is.

cwolf, please admit you were wrong in calling Social philosophy and policy neo-randian(what ever thats suppose to mean), 2)that "toc and the like (who and what?) has been making progress in academia, 3)you made up "neo-randians run a respected journal", 4)Gladsteins book and the novels of smith, holzer and york are not academic, 5)Mack didn't write over 70 papers on Objectivism, 6)kelley writing an paper in 1984 does not mean the journal is associated with him, 7)saying "Sure that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think" is an ad hominem(poisoning the well). Admit to these so we can move on.

Social Philosophy and Policy isn't neo-Randian and isn't associated with kelley.