Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Clawg

Regulars
  • Posts

    475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Clawg

  1. Epidemiological evidence, you can read some articles googling for a1 cows casein. Personally, I suffered some withdrawal symptoms when I went "cold turkey", although that wasn't a scientific experiment (I didn't switch from A1 to A2, I simply stopped drinking milk / eating cheese). *might* be a reason why cheese is so popular But not everyone is affected, it depends on the permeability of the intestine (caused by alcohol, infections, bad diet etc., it's a complex field of study).
  2. I think lactose-free milk for babies is used only temporarily. You can be "lactose tolerant" (genetically) but still be lactose intolerant because of some temporary illness (e.g. diarrhea) which hampers your production of lactase (the enzyme that splits lactose). As a side note: Drinking cow milk is certainly not the healthiest thing to do, even if it's organic. Many cows produce beta-casein A1 which can cause an addiction and can have effects on the brain, while beta-casein A2 does not. Goat milk seems to be a better choice.
  3. The border between organized crime and government tends to be blurry sometimes. I see zero possibility that a military intervention would harm any terrorist networks there.
  4. Maybe the US should attack Florida then and wipe out organized crime there.
  5. All sorts of people show up there. I visit it regularly, they have an interesting compilation of news hardly available anywhere else. The comments are hardly moderated.
  6. Sounds like she had you on her leash. She probably thought that she already invested a lot into the relationship (her appearance). You encouraged her in that belief. Next time be more selfish.
  7. Obama is US citizen. But to be eligible to the office of President one has to be a so called "natural born citizen". What that exactly is isn't well defined.
  8. Call me on what? I made a statement about the political implications IF it is a fraud. Oh well, never mind, the thread is in the ad hominem phase, not much left to discuss here.
  9. Well, for me it doesn't even matter if Obama is a born US citizen or not. For all I care he could be born and raised in China. The law doesn't protect the country from bad presidents, being born and raised in one country doesn't improve one's qualities concerning being a good president. I would even go as far as to say that this law is actually bad because it gives people false security as it stresses the irrational reasoning that an american POTUS is better than a chinese POTUS, just because he was born and raised in the US. The issue about the birth certificate is very insignificant. A funny foot-note compared to the real issues. Issues like this one just give a small glimpse how politics work :>
  10. You ignore that you can't become president on your own. Political forces pick appropriate candidates. In politics / bureaucracies mediocre people or people with some 'bodies in the basement' have higher chances to gain ranks because they pose less of a danger to their superiors. Here is one article about that subject (english) : http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,637767,00.html True. But there could be other reasons. Are there advantages for someone born as an US citizen (compared to someone born as a Kenyan citizen)? If yes then this could have been a motive. Maybe I'm a truth loving person In this case I would accept the original birth certificate as evidence.
  11. It was not a photocopy of the original birth certificate, merely some form of receipt, e.g. there is no signature of a doctor and/or attendant. Are there legal formalities that determine in which newspaper one is allowed to mention a birth?
  12. Nothing to see here, move along If it's true that he can't provide his birth certificate then it just shows how dependant he is from the political forces behind him.
  13. It's insofar essential as he can be blackmailed because of it.
  14. A judicial proceeding provides the framework for a proper investigation ending in a proper judgement. Actions are not justified without a proper judgement. It doesn't matter who you put on trial. If you put an innocent person on trial then a proper court will find him innocent. I would have put the most obvious persons (these 19 persons named by the FBI) on trial in order to find out possible accessories to the murder. Instead those 19 persons were 'convicted' (as far as this is possible, they are called "hijackers" which implies a conviction) without a trial. I can't provide evidence in the sense as it is used in front of a court. I know of leads that lead me to believe possible negligence. I don't know if these acts constitute criminal negligence, for that I don't know enough of the court rulings and the law involved. I don't want to list the leads here until we agree on the principles involved concerning the investigation. @gags: It doesn't matter if I agree or not agree with the report. The point is that the investigation was incomplete. I would be content with any result of an investigation if the investigation was done properly. And yes, there are many people who don't share my view and pass judgement on the US government ('they did it'). It's easy to dismiss their claims because they base their claims on privately collected newspaper articles and personal investigation, not on a proper court proceeding. And there is also a number of people (like me) who would favor a new official investigation.
  15. It's very easy to provide evidence that the investigation into 9/11 did not meet the standards of an usual judicial proceeding. Well, the least thing that should happen is that those people are replaced by people who are more able and that the system by which people are selected and act is reexamined.
  16. You ignore possible (criminal) negligence of the parties involved (military, intelligence agencies, state department etc.). You don't necessarily commit a crime just by being directly involved in its execution. If leads weren't followed before (and after) that day then it has to be determined why and the responsible persons have to be persecuted. Well, it's not rational because your argument presents a false dichotomy. "Either it was exactly as the official story or the whole government was involved in every step of the attack.", there are alternatives, you know
  17. Fair use maybe But I'm no legal expert :> Copyright
  18. The author has inserted symbols of Christianity when Galt speaks about self-sacrifice. What else would you display when talking about self-sacrifice? There is also an updated series here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4BE5E347A6222400 Concerning the "dramatic reading", it's from the Atlas Shrugged audio book, read by Christopher Hurt.
  19. Yes, that is a true statement. They can't follow EVERY lead. But I think looking at the connections that the 19 people made during their stay in the US is not just "any possibility anyone can imagine" but very straightforward. The network of people behind the attacks was never uncovered. Why would it irrational to ask those people that someone like Atta had direct contact with before the attack? Someone had financed the operation so a proper investigation goes step by step back in time. I don't get your reasoning. I can understand that you say that you see no evidence for a conspiracy. But arguing that the official investigation into 9/11 was proper? mmh... Then let's all hope the FBI will do the job.
  20. Irrelevant if information was withheld. I look at it like a case in court. The first step is to understand what happened. From what is available it is impossible to say either way. I'd love to believe the official story if it did explain how it happened. How would you call someone, who argues that there is not enough evidence to support the official story, that there are many open questions and that a proper investigation is required? Well, I'm looking for evidence. Some of the points could be cleared up if certain documents were released. Well, that is obvious. The question is HOW they did it. Maybe the recordings should be released (yes, some of them were, some others were destroyed). To figure out how planes can be secured against that in future. Even if it is impossible to secure a plane against a hostile takeover, it should be possible to detect if such a takeover took place in order to inform forces on the ground. The question is why did they continue to fly away from their targets after they captured the planes. They turned their planes exactly when they left primary (west coast) radar cover. Why? If we knew the reason why they have flown this route the defensive systems could be improved. Obviously they were "dodging" something. Otherwise it seems strange that they risked to fly such an elaborate maneuver. The point isn't that they switched off the transponders, but when they switched them off. I can't figure it out. Well, I'm no pilot, but when I wanted to "land" in the Pentagon I would fly a straight line and not a 180 degree turn. Yes, obviously. Still I would like to know. I don't know what happened. Too bad the black boxes are not available I was refering to the possible connections of the owners of the flight schools to the terrorists. This lead was never followed.
  21. Then you have spoken to "nuts" who didn't do any research for themselves. It is impossible to argue that there was a conspiracy because there are so many missing informations about what happened. Unanswered questions that pop into my mind when thinking about 9/11 are for example: How did they manage that the planes/pilots did not send a distress signal? Why did they choose these specific routes for the planes (i.e. fly away from their target for quite a while)? Why did they switch off the transponders at these very specific times (radar coverage?)? Why did they select that certain building part of the Pentagon for the attack (it was being renovated at that time)? What happened on the plane during the time of which we have no recordings? What about the results of the investigation into the flight schools? Maybe we will know in 50 years.
  22. Only the Republican Party ("Republikaner") wants to actually exit the EU. But that's just another christian, nationalist party. Well, elections are just polls. Change comes through education, not by voting.
  23. Mmh... the german Libertas party recommends to vote for some christian, socialist party ("AUF") because they want the people to decide on the Lisbon treaty.... hardly a good choice. My vote goes for some libertarian party, "FDP". Simply to nullify a leftist vote. This is how the Left tries to win voters here:
  24. Maybe they should make it illegal for North Korea having nukes
×
×
  • Create New...