HaloNoble6

Yeah this was pretty retarded.

You must not forget to wear your shinny pants to commencement!

The fact of the matter is that there isn't a "rather large difference", in principle, between the theft of property outside a country's borders, and the theft of property inside a country's borders. Theft is theft.

And just what, in principle, is that "rather large difference?"

Oh, OK. I've had people pronounce my name exactly the way you've spelled it.

Was this meant for me?

Huh, I just checked the moderator logs, and indeed the only changes made to that topic title prior to yesterday were by me. I'm sorry about that Felix; you know I have no bone to pick with you. We were doing some house-cleaning back then and clearing up titles to make them less obscure or less general; it looks like I took too much liberty in this case. It's weird because I've never used that word in regular speech--hence why I readily admited it wasn't me (in fact I had to look the word up to see exactly what it meant). My apologies, mate.

I didn't do it, but man is that subtitle funny (and accurate)!

Please keep us updated on his thoughts on Yaron's piece!

Is it just me, or does it seem like the lunatic Iranian leaders know more about America's cultural state than America leaders do? They speak clearly, smilingly, directly. American officials speak vaguely, apologetically, pleadingly. (link) I'm beginning to get very worried...

I don't understand this distinction between actual and official reasons. What, are there conspiracy theories out there saying we did it to test the bomb on actual people? Anyway, the point is that the principle behind the bombing of Japan can apply to bombing Iran. Japan, a proven threat, was given an ultimatum to surrender unconditionally, which it refused. The Japanese were going to fight to the death, to be 'martyrs', were we to invade. In response, the most efficient, least costly method of taking down the threat was to use nukes. Similarly, we have Iran, the heart of an Islamic culture that glorifies martyrdom, as a proven threat. Iran should be given an ultimatum: surrender unconditionally or be bombed. I agree with you that Iran has not committed the same injustices on the same scale as Japan. But the difference exists only because Japan was allowed to act out its ambitions, while Iran can't just yet. In principle, however, their ambitions are the same: world domination using a militant flavor of religious fanaticism. And so, in principle, the same solution applies: give up or die. As far as your second point, I think it's more of a tactical question, not a moral question. We must agree, however, that the most efficient, least costly option that results in the end of the threat is the moral option. If not, we can't discuss this issue. (That is, we can't discuss "containment" for the sake of preserving "economies".) If we have good cause to suspect that bombing of Iran would induce retaliation by it or other parties, then we cripple all capabilities for retaliation in one truly shocking and awing strike. Additionally, we may beforehand deliver an ultimatum to those who would be insane enough to think of such a notion: you make a single move toward such an act, you will be destroyed. It is truly a tragedy that non-freedom-loving nations were allowed to get the bomb. It is an indictment of our foreign policy. Fortunately it seems this policy is changing. Let me add that this is all moot anyway, since there is no way in hell a military guided by Just War Theory will ever act in a wholy selfish way by using nukes to break the will of the enemy.

And what point is there in wondering about the cost of such a war if such a thing as "cost" is irrelevent if we're all dead anyway?

The will of the enemy must be utterly shattered via a nuclear bomb. To avoid American casualties and skyrocketing debt in a long drawn-out "war on terror," end it by crushing its heart, Iran. Consider the points made in this article.

"HG," you make it seem as if you're dissapointed that the so-called "freedom fighters" aren't coming up with better strategies to promote their cause. What is their cause and why do you support it, if you do? I could think of more fundamental points to criticize these people for--like for example that they are barbarians. That seems to be overlooked in your sarcastic remarks over the way in which they are trying to promote their cause.

Here is an open letter from the Borders CEO to Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs weblog, responding to Mr. Johson's criticism of Borders.

Regret?! You could totally win your case should you face a female judge. Just say: "Your honor, are my pants shiny enough for you to see yourself in them?"

Remember to wear your shiny pants to court... Congrats!

Welcome to the forum. I can sympathize with your situation, and I hope what you're looking for can be found here. Can you elaborate on what you mean here: This forum is provided at the pleasure of its owner. So, any freedom here (or lack thereof) is rightly left to his discretion. What that freedom consists of is determined by the purpose he sets for the forum. Whether the freedom here achieves his purpose, or whether the purpose itself is worth achieving, is something we may all judge for ourselves. As I understand it, the purpose of this forum is to provide an place of exchange for those who are interested in learning and or practicing Objectivism. As such, open antagonism to O'ism and its creator, among other things antithetical to this purpose, are not welcome.

I'm posting to ask for assistance in distributing The Undercurrent's free speech flyer at Yale, NYU, Stanford, and Berkeley campuses. Kudos to anyone that's already distributed at these campuses. I will be at Yale and NYU this coming Monday, and at Stanford and Berkeley at some point between Tuesday and Friday of the coming week. I will have at least a couple of thousand copies on hand to distribute. The more people distributing on a particular campus, the faster it gets done and the easier it is to thwart those who wish to take the flyers down. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Flyer: tu_cartoon_issue.pdf

OK, who did that. Not funny.

Don't forget Naomi Watts. Or this woman, who I've never heard of.

I couldn't resist, though they weight 78lbs and 67lbs, respectively:

Another question to ask, which I don't know the answer to, is how often are these bad laws enforced? Do people actually pay no mind to these laws? For example, here in the States, the drinking age is 21. But I read about this trendy Hollywood club where teen stars go to hang out and drink. They have been photographed going in, drinking, and coming out. Yet the local cops don't do anything. This is just one example of non-objective laws which fail to be enforced. So, unless we have that data, I don't think it's enough to have a listing of the UAE's laws as proof of its evil.

This is the context-dropping, cherry-picking technique that you continue to follow. She *qualified* this statement further with "If the United States is to commit suicide, let it not be for the sake and support of the worst human elements, the parasites-on-principle, at home and abroad." You keep insisting on the "if America continues down the road of a mixed-economy" statement as if it stood alone, and means what you want it to mean. But, unfortunately for you, she meant that "if America is to committ suicide." This is a statement of *principle*. You insist, in a concrete-bound fashion, on referring to the continuance of a mixed-economy as the sanction for a NASA. No, it is not. The condition Ayn Rand *explicitly* stated for her to be able to not make a fuss over NASA is for America's death to be certain. Get that straight. Your entire argument is based on this notion of the "the continuance of a mixed-economy justifies NASA." Forget the military stuff, because that's just another rationalization you're using to justify NASA. Just answer this: Do you accept that Ayn Rand made a statement about how she views NASA, under the circumstances of America's death being certain? If you don't, you are building castles in the sky to satisfy your own whims.