Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Regis

  • Birthday 06/20/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright

Regis's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. I agree with Kelly and Scott. The conversation would definitely be beneficial for her but might cause some problems with your brother and sister-in-law. Be careful about how you approach it. And start by asking if she's talked to her parents about it yet, so you know how to structure your conversation.
  2. ROFLMAO!! Back on topic... I don't drink much but Vodka is my drink of choice. From now on I'll make an effort to avoid drinking Absolut.
  3. Honesty. Without a doubt. I have little patience for anyone, male or female, who leads me around in circles refusing to tell me what they think openly and honestly. A close second would be rationality and third would be intelligence.
  4. Just because more of the characters Rand mentions in Galt's Gulch are male does not mean that there is not a significant (or even equal) number of women there. It just so happens that the people Dagny knows (and therefore the characters we have been introduced to) in the valley are male because she worked with them and at that time more men were industrialists than women.
  5. I spent about a year between finishing my undergraduate degree in 2004 (at age 22) and starting Law School. During that year I was introduced to Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. After I had read all those books I went on to his website to see if he had written anything else. From his website I learned that he was an Objectivist, so I decided to read Atlas Shrugged. I finished it just a day before starting Law School and have since read nearly everything Miss Rand has published. I had previously considered myself a "Classical Liberal" so it wasn't much of a stretch for me to go from admiring Locke and the Founder's political philosophy and embracing Objectivism. I wish I had been introduced to her ideas much sooner, though. I could have used them back in High School and College.
  6. Am I correct in thinking that he implies that God must be either indifferent or malevolent? Benedict sharply criticizes Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution, although he acknowledges that both were responding to the deep injustices of the time. "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God," he wrote. If a world marked by that much injustice cannot be the work of a good God, yet the world was marked by that much injustice, doesn't that logically mean that God is not good? It seems so, unless you consider the possibility that God does not exist. Or, if he exists, the world was not the work of God. But since he is the Pope and just blasted Atheism in the same document I think it is safe to say he is assuming that much. So...According to the pope, god is not good? *smirk*
  7. I'm pretty sure this map is only showing "conventional" oil. That means the liquid stuff. Canada's reserves are mostly "Oil Sands". The US has lots of Shale Oil also, mostly in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. We're just looking for a more economically viable method of extracting it. Thus the discrepancy between the map and the linked chart. If we can find a way to extract the oil from Shale (like Ellias Wyatt did in Atlas Shrugged, incidentally), then we'd have 5 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.
  8. Then that might change my opinion. It depends on whether or not the procedure is performed before or after viability. I was under the impression that this procedure was only performed late term, if not very late then still third trimester.
  9. I'd just like to point out that: 1) This decision is entirely consistent with the court's decision in Roe v. Wade. (A point that Conservatives and Liberals alike seem to have evaded almost entirely.) The quoted part below is from that opinion. 2) Partial Birth Abortion happens after viability. In fact, as the name implies, the abortion happens moments before birth. The baby is fully capable of life outside the womb at the time the procedure is carried out without significant medical help (unlike as in the case of premature babies). Furthermore, most of the objections raised by the ban of abortion are no longer applicable at this point. I don't know about all of you, but while I have serious reservations about the banning of earlier term abortions, viability is a turning point of sorts for me. We've crossed the point of potentiality into actuality. Thus, I don't see much difference in aborting a fully viable fetus that is in the process of birthing and killing a baby once it has fully left the womb. That puts me in agreement with the court on this issue in both Roe v. Wade and Gonzales vs Carthart Comments? P.S. This post does not raise the commerce clause issues touched on by Justices Thomas and Scalia. A proper construction of that clause would almost certainly bar Federal legislation such as this, but allow similar legislation under the constitutional law jurisprudence if passed by individual states.
  10. Really? I've only just started to read things by him in the past year (linking from generally right-wing blogs). I had no idea he had made such a conversion in his thinking. Fascinating.
  11. I have to say that I like YouTube a lot. Though I don't know how it works out as a business. Do they have any other income except through banners and such? *shrug* I think it has potential and Google has always stayed ahead of the curve on new things and built on its previous success. Even so, 1.65 Billion? Wow.
  12. <Mod's note: Link to YouTube-hosted video removed due to copyright concerns. - sN> For those of you who haven't seen it. Hilarious. Its always the first thing I think of when North Korea does its semi-annual media attention grab.
  13. I posted this link at another Objectivism forum. Everyone should see this. http://www.newsoftheday.com/ Israel deserves the full support of every friend of Western Civilization.
  14. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with that. I just don't think the current administration understands the reality of the situation yet. Even if they do they will continue acting with restraint for political reasons.
  15. I think this latest crisis has shown the truth of these words. There has been much less backlash against Israel from the usual suspects than in the past. It wasn't the palestineans, but Hizbullah (sp?) and Southern Lebanon where Israel pulled its troops out six years ago. Israel has repeatedly told the Lebanese government to move its military down into the south and solve the terrorist problem or it would be held responsible. After the attack into Israel and the kidnapping of its soldiers Israel is keeping its word. While I wouldn't mind seeing the bombing of Syrian infrastructure I don't see that (much less an invasion) happening as of now. That might trigger a much wider conflict and I suspect the US government will pressure Israel to hold off for now, despite the press release from the State department blaming Syria and Iran.
  • Create New...