WGD

At www.intellectualactivist.com Robert Tracinsk is offering a free month of his new TIA online.

Scott Connery is correct, the Geneva convention is to restrict good countries. Civilized countries already follow rules of conflict. Since that treaty has been inforced our troops have been mistreated in every major conflict. It's altruism plain and simple, dictators say "we signed the treaty" and then you hear "who are we to judge" or "how do you know." ECONOMICS has almost nothing to do with why wars start.

Sailor, everything you said after "The shah was deposed in 1979" is wrong. But I must say "These people later broke from Khomeini, forming a new agenda, moved to Afghanistan and became the Taliban and Al-Queda." Doesn't make any sense at all.

The Sailor: you said Kerry defended America. Vietnam is not part of America. Bush served in the National Gaurd and didn't see combat (like 90% of people who serve their country) so he didn't defend America??? My point is your splitting hairs. Oliver North??? Are you talking about Iran-Contra, that didn't have anything to do with Afghanistan. The CIA??? Do you mean the freedom fighters in Afghanistan. That's a different country from Iran. You even got the decades wrong, the Shah of Iran fell in the 70's and the freedom fighters of Afghanistan was the 80's. We didn't sell the Iranians any planes after the fall of the Shah.

Bob Jones your problem is you don't know what individual rights are. In the Bob Jones world, everyone is a slave to the fetus.

The Sailor, are you saying that only people who serve in the military have a right to make decisions on foreign policy. If your going to say George Bush didn't defend America you can't say Kerry did.

You don't own "air" and rivers and aquifers don't move. The Moon will be owned by anybody who lands on it and claims it.

Individuals have rights. The mother has rights. The fetus is part of the mother, so it doesn't have individual rights. Saying that the fetus has rights that the mother has to follow against her will is a contradiction. Bob Jones and Semms' argument is that you have individual rights, just as long as your a fetus, then you lose them.

In 2003 they were laying people off or making full time jobs- part time and cutting programs. In the last six months they are doing only events that cost their supporters more money. If they charge for everything, what are the contributions going to? I suspect everyone got pay cuts because David Kelley got a part-time job teaching and Hudgins is now working part-time at Cato. Their washington office seems to be the trunk of Hudgins car. Now I hear Ed Snider is pulling out of TOC. That could be the last straw before they go the way of "Jim Jones people temple." LOL

Over at Noumenalself.com are two articles covering TOC and its misfortunes over the last eighteen months. Dated April 11, 2004 and September 28, 2003. Looking at TOC's tax returns, they have been sinking for awhile. Last open ones are for the year ending 2002. Contributions in 2002 fell 19.95% to $844,676 from 1,055,259. Program services(events that non-profits charge for) was up only 2%(inflation) from 2001, but 2001 was a 25% drop from 2000. 2002 was so bad, TOC's net worth at the end of the year was a negative $3,734. The assets of 199K were mainly equipment and inventory and the 123K in liabilities included a credit of 14K with mininum payments being made and a 50,000 credit line, full used, just to keep the doors open. part 2 soon

Tonight. 8:30 Est.

Yes, it looks like it's on hold. The only positive is Crusader is a division of Anschutz Film Group which has other production companies. The film rights are moving to "Bristol Bay." But if they don't start production soon they will run out of time. The rights they have end in less than three years and revert to Dr. Peikoff.

Peikoff never said "nuke em all." His comments were on civiliam leaders demanding victory but then putting all kinds of restrictions on the military. He said the military should be allowed to decide which weapons are appropriate.

From "The passages cut from judgement day" by Nate the Great. This is him reading from the text that was cut. The tape is from the viewpoint of Deavers relating to Nate what happened. Deavers goes to Ayn Rand's building around 12:30 and told the doorman she was a journalist [Lie] who had an appointment [Lie] with AR. Gets onto the sixth floor and waits an hour and a half. Ayn comes home and sticks the key in the door, up runs Deavers. She identifies herself and wants to talk. "The door of the apartment was now half open and I moved in slightly, blocking her from entering, and I leaned against the entrance with an air of authority and said I had come here on my own and you knew nothing about it." Remember this is Nate qouting his wife. After this back and forth, Deavers gets in when Ayn was "looking disoriented." Nate's quote of Deavers, "To establish my presence more firmly, I immediately took off my coat." Nate then discribes his wife walking around the apartment like she's on a tour and even going into Ayn refrigerator and pouring her self a drink without asking. Even Barbara Branden heard about the attack of Deavers. In Passion of AR p.398-399. Quoting Ayn Rand. "I was coming home one day and I found a woman standing in front of my apartment door who said she was Nathan's wife. I let her in because she insisted; there were people in the hall, and I didn't want a public scene. She talked some nonsense..." You get the idea. Back to Nate's tape. Deaver's then starts harassing Ayn by phone. The last call is on September 25, 1981. This is at Nate's request because he has heard people say Ayn is descibing Deavers as this "terrible women who is bothering me" and "making such a pest of herself." Nate said he'll tape the conversation[isn't that illegal?]. Now you have Nate quoting his wife, Barbara quoting Ayn Rand and Nate quoting his mutual friends saying Ayn thinks Deavers is "terrible" and "a pest." Does Deavers even have any qualifications? Other then knowing Nate, who really can't call himself a psychologist. Oh, by the way, that smile face your using is saying your a "pimp." I don't think thats what you mean.

You need to talk to your boss RCR. Nate the Great told the story.

Nate the Great admits Devers forced her way into Ayn Rand's apartment. Then wouldn't leave until she delivered a speech. Thats from someone who's married to her! Nate then laughs about putting the idea of going to Ayn in her (D's) head, showing he STILL manipulates people. The happiness of force. She'll show how to push women in their 70s around. Didn't she also rearrange the furniture in her house so she could communicate with other life forms?

Atlas51184, what you read about USC was correct. This is a different $1KK gift. I came across this press release in January 2003. unc.edu/news/newsserv/archives/nov02/bbt110702.html I guess it took a long time to gel. BB&T also gave $1KK to the VEM program (Gary Hull and Eric Daniels) in 2003. vem.duke.edu And also over $2.5KK to the University of Kentucky this year. uky.edu/PR/uk_News/January%2019%202004/BandE5million.html (These gift amounts are all spread over a number of years)

Not at all. Once you chose to be a cop it would be wrong for you not to inforce the law. Cops don't make the laws, you would create anarchy if you just inforced laws you agreed with. Now If you don't like the drug laws(for example), don't join the DEA, go into a different area if you can. We still live in free country, so there are multiply ways to change laws you disagree with. As an Officer, your initiating force if you don't inforce the laws. Being an Objectivist and a Law Enforcement Officer in very compatible.

Thanks to a $1,000,000 gift(multi-year) to the UNC philosophy department from the BB&T Charitable Foundation, a "BB&T Visiting Assistant Professor" (among other things) was created. Dr. Amy Peikoff will hold it during the 2004-2005 academic year.

solo founder Lindsay Perigo says David Kelley is wrong about O'ism being a closed system. Joe Rowland runs solo and thinks David is right. Perigo and Sciabarra are Homosexuals but then there is Reginald Firehammer, who wrote and sells a book called "Hijacking of a Philosophy." Its about a cabal of homosexual seeking to take over O'ism.[non fiction] Sciabarra disagrees with the book, but encourages people to read it. Perigo supports preemption in the terror war but Sciabarra thinks preemption is the opposite of what Ayn Rand supported. But Reginald Firehammer agrees with Sciabarra that Perigo's view of preemption is total non-O'ist. Then there is...G. Stolyarov the II. He's worth the price of admission all by himself. He has his own spelling of words. Example: philosophy is filosofy and photographic is fotografic. He must also get paid per word, but not to make sense.

sense of life objectivists. They think ARI is wrong about O'ism being a closed system...and they think David Kelley is wrong about it being an open system. They support preemption in the terror war... and America is starting wars all over the place. They have no problems with homosexuals in O'ism... and think homosexuals are trying to take over O'ism. They think TOC is too intellectual. "It [TOC] was aimed at expanding the theory of Objectivism and wasn't primarily an agent of cultural change. It still uses dry, logical style of a think tank. Although this style is effective at communicating logical arguments and explanations, it does little to inspire or impress." They seem to like "activism." Read mindless action.

According to George Reisman, in 1954, she said if she wasn't busy writing Atlas Shrugged she would be McCarthy's Zola to his Dreyfus. In Roy Cohn's book, he said Ayn Rand came up to him at a party and said someone got to McCarthy[concerning McCarthy backing down on a issue] implying McCarthy didn't go far enough. Letters of Ayn Rand: To Edna Lonigan Mar. 26, 1949. Concerning Friendly Witnesses to HUAC getting blackballed by Hollywood. "...the worst part of it being that our side has not risen to their defense. If we do not defend the people who take the risk of standing openly on our side, we shall defeat our cause completely, and we shall deserve to be defeated." Ayn Rand: "Suggestions regarding the congressional investigation of communism" "When Congress investigates the Communist Party, it is investigating a factual matter, a criminal conspiracy, and not a matter of ideas." "Congress was not inquiring who believes in Communism. It was inquiring who belongs to an organizaition that has defined itself, by its own acts and statements, as criminal."

Buchanan never says how these wars are not in America's interest. His argument is, the wars help Israel, therefore Jews in the government are doing Israel bidding.

The question is: why support Israel? "Israel and Taiwan are the two countries that need and deserve U.S. help-not in the name of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national interests in the Mediterranean and the Pacific." Ayn Rand-The lessons of Vietnam in The Voice of Reason They are our civilized allies under attack from uncivilized enemies.