fletch

The implications of death is the ending of life. The certainty of death and the uncertainty of its arrival date is what makes life so valuable. Objectivism concerns itself with the living. If you are interested in a discussion of the hereafter, see Christianity. Having reproduced twice, with a slight assist from my wife, I can say that the idea of 'unavoidable death' was never a conscious factor. So, I dont see how they are in any way linked. I dont think there is.

If we continually advocate voting for the greater evil, how long will it be before we get exactly what we voted for? And wont it be rather tough to complain about it once it arrives?

It might be somewhat interesting, but I think I would find it cartoonish, unrealistic and nowhere near as exciting as a local high school football game. But taking your point, the only way a game filled with cheetah-men would be interesting is if they were facing a team of cheetah-men. In other words, there would have to be some parody of skill (or drug use). I say eliminate drugs and let the best man win.

Because those jokes would have been believable, thus funny. Everyone knows Clinton would screw a hummingbird if he could get it to hold still long enough.

OK. So now what happens? The government has stepped in to the tune of $1,000,000,000,000 or so, so what does it mean? What is going to be the result of this intervention?

The trouble is, the drug usage would begin at an early age; likely highschool and would continue through college. The pressure to take unhealthy mixtures would be significant. For me, I would rather watch the team that boasts the best talent, not the best pharmacist.

Maybe we should team up in like groups of 5 and go to other political, ethical and philosphy forums and engage in debate. I cant tell you the number of times I have been on other forums arguing everything from global warming to animal rights and wished other like minded people were there with me. Usually, it is 4 or 5 to 1, me being the one. There are any number of people out there who are receptive to many of the ideas of Objectivism, but have never heard of it. Us going where they are might help bring others to where we are.

Then she made her choice.

Please check your history. Incompetent? Hardly. She worked her way from PTA to Governor. In a political world filled with lawyers, intellectual elites and limousine liberals, she is one of the most 'All-American' candidates I have seen. You may not like her politics, but she is not incompetent. Unless you plan to live for another thousand years, Christians arent going anywhere. So you might as well learn to live with them. They are no threat to me. In fact, if they want to believe that my rights are a gift from God, great. That makes them less likely to violate them. Dadmonsons question was not about the proper way to fund the government, but whether raising someone elses taxes was in his interest.

If you believe that robbing from the rich is in your interest, then do it. It will not, however, become moral just because you elect into office a person who will do it for you.

Leave it to the French. You think they would have learned from past experience. See here:

I think that is right. Boil the issue down to a discussion of rights. If you can reach an agreement as to what rights are and what rights you have, you can apply that to the issue you are discussing. If the person you are talking with doesnt accept your position on rights or believes that the state can breach those rights if circumstances demand it, then you are not likely to agree on much.

Do you think there has never been such a situation in US history. I think that you would find the religious beliefs of John Jay, Founding Father and first Chief justice of the Supreme Court, to be virtually indistinguishable from those of Scalia. The US was not founded, lead, nor inhabited by atheists. The idea of individual rights has always co-existed with enlightened Christianity. Gov. Palin demonstrates that in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSmWVCRJWOw You may not like Christianity, but it is nothing new.

Outside of abortion, are there any major issues where a liberal court is preferable to a conservative court?

You would still run into the problem of whites gobbling up more than their fair share of cookies. To properly run the quota system, whites would be unable to buy a cookie--regardless of price--until the minority cookie quota has been filled. You may, in fact, have to give cookies away to people who fall into certain groups if not enough members of that group are willing to buy them.

Ever see "The Caine Mutiny?" You sound like Bogart's character Captain Queeg trying to prove the existence of a duplicate key to the ward room--all to get to the bottom of what happened to a missing pint of strawberries! How much can that ticket possibly cost, 50-60 bucks? My advice, pay it, and next time you drive down that road, slow down.

I think if you are looking for some kind of parallel, I would say that Rev. Wright is more the Toohey type. Obama is Keating.

I saw part of it as well. Maybe fifteen minutes worth. I used to think that Dancing with the Stars was the most unwatchable show on TV. Not any more. This might have been the most revolting political spectacle I have ever seen. I defy anyone to sit through that forum without throwing themselves out a window.

Huh? Obama openly brags about his intention to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy--that would be a tax increase. He has openly mused about raising capital gains taxes--that would be a tax increase. Then there is the windfall profits tax on 'big oil'--that would be a tax increase. Those are just three example that come to mind. I dont doubt that there are many more. There is no question that Obama plans to finance the tax cuts he says he plans to give 95% of Americans by taxing the hell out of the remaining 5%. Do you not see the problem with this? Do you have a source for this?

If you look closely, you can actually see Bradshaw scratch this play out in the dirt. Fuqua=>Tatum=>Harris=>Touchdown!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGQ_8wNZrHs...feature=related Ring count: Bradshaw 4 Marino 0

I hear his economic stimulus plan is to clone his wife.

Sacrilege!!!!

I think the service McCain is trying to highlight is his own. While the service Obama has in mind is everyone else's.

Reagan took office 28 years ago. 20 of those 28 years have seen Republican presidents and more than half have seen Republican control of one or both houses of Congress. So that leads me to a couple of questions. First, in what way is the current rise in religious fundamentalism different or worse than at any other time in US history? Second, what tangible inroads into my liberty has the religious right made in those 28 years and how does it compare to the inroads made by the left-wing environmental movement during that same period? I am old enough to remember the talk of Global Cooling that was gaining favor after a few bitter winters in the late 70's. Global warming is the rage today, and it has gained world-wide acceptance in roughly the same time span as the rise in religious fundamentalism. Bush, the last remnant of the religious right, is in tatters. Environmentalism is not. Finally, with the advantage of hindsight, can anyone really say that a Reagan defeat in 1980 would have been a better outcome for the US? Could we really have survived another 4 years of Carter? Yikes.

In other words, what you are suggesting is setting up some form a benevolent dictatorship that only violates individual rights when it sees an emergency or when it believes some greater good can be achieved, and you want to know why Objectivists dont buy into it. Is that right? Part of the problem with such a scenario is that you are no longer talking about rights but, rather, privileges. So, in essence, you are asking why we dont just turn our rights over to the state and let it tell us what is best for us and what we will be allowed to do and when. While it is good of you to ask, I think I will pass.