fletch
-
Posts
549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by fletch
-
-
Now that Maxine Waters has unfurled the banner of nationalism, it will be interesting to see if anyone picks it up and runs with it. It would not shock me to see some Dennis Kucinich-type propose legislation on the heels of some dubious polls showing 55% support for nationalization of the oil industry. Such a suggestion by a sitting congressman should be tantamount to political suicide, but rather than being a laughing stcok, Ms. Waters will certainly be re-elected and probably run unopposed.
What I wonder is if the congress passed such legislation and it was signed into law by the president, would the Supreme Court strike it down? And if so on what grounds, and with the current make up of the court what the vote would be?
-
Great clip.
I usually refrain from calling liberals socialists because they dont advocate siezing control of industry...at least until now. I think what we saw here from Ms. Waters was a moment of candor: just what she would do if she had the power to do things her way. No doubt the brilliant Ms. Waters believes that she could run Shell better than its current CEO anyhow. After all, how hard could it be? I think liberals like Waters and almost certainly Obama, are socialists at heart. They just cant openly advocate it because they know that the average American still clings to some quaint notions of human liberty. So they just have to sneak it by us when we arent looking. What worries me is not that there are people like Waters out there, it is that there are more than we think.
-
because my grammer and spelling are pretty atrotious, so that is a challenge.
Atrotious? Come on. Everyone knows how to spell that. Its Atrosious. Err..Atroscus...Atroshys...Aw hell, thats why I use Awful.
-
There are a number of people who were in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain who corroborate the accounts of torture and McCain still carries the physical disabilities associated with his treatment by the NVA.
Here's one:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/mc...ble-conditions/
"Col. George “Bud” Day, 83, is the most decorated service man since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, with more than 70 medals." He was a POW there with Mccain and he calls Mccain a hero. That is good enough for me.
-
And why should it be? Arent you getting just what you want? You dont care about her well being, why should she concern herself with yours? You condemn her for seeking her own gratification and concratulate yourself for doing the same thing.Maybe his happiness is not what she really cares about.Good luck with that.
-
Yes, and I disagree with that. I'd have a concern over a mother who would be upset and lack understanding if I told her something like this;
Mom, I know you want me to be happy, but no, I haven't found a love interest yet. I'm happy now and I continue to be optimistic about my future in finding the right woman. But it must be the right woman, and finding any woman now just for the sake of having some relationship would not be right - it would not make me happy. I'm alright mom, and I will be alright when I do find the woman that is right for me. This is something that may take time, but it is time well spent. I'm sorry that I cannot make this happen right now, but in the hopes that you truly love me and seek my hapiness, I hope you understand. I will be alright. As for right now mom, I'm happy to be here spending time with you and helping you in your time of need.
Actually, I hadnt commented on that particular scenario.
-
So your mom has raised you to be a man of integrity, she is counting on your integrity, and the beauty is that you repay her by betraying what she has taught you? What is beautiful about that?
Betrayal? Who is harmed by the lie?
I have no problem with what I did in the past and if the circumstances were the same, I would do it agian, so feel free to judge me all you want. But be honest about it. I am not glorifying lying. I am saying that there are times when honesty can cause irreparable damage. Death is one of those times, because it doesnt afford you the time to come to terms with reality. If my mother asked me to care for her dog when she was in no danger of imminent death, I would say no. This might dissapoint her, but she would have ample time to make other arrangements. In terms of this scenario, if I am honest with my mother, it makes her final hours of life miserable. If I am dishonest, she passes in greater comfort. What do I gain by telling the truth? Some self-congratulatory pat on the back for adhering slavishly to principle at best. That is of no value to me if it comes at the expense of my mothers emotional well being in the final hours of life.I have not passed any judgement on you personally. Nor would I judge a man based solely on his actions in the past. What matters is the kind of man you strive to be and working to become, much more than who you are or were.If I would judge you for anything, it would be for trying to glorify lying for the sake of pleasing someone and seeing it as an ideal to strive to.
-
I disagree. The only way to get the proper reaction from the mother--that is, for her to believe what you tell her--is that she first believes that you are a person of integrity and honesty. If my mom believed me to be fundamentally dishonest or likely to appease her in any given situation, the death bed lie would not be believed. It is that she knows you to be trustworthy and honest that she takes the death bed lie as truth.Again you give yourself credit where you don't deserve it. The "cause" of mom's reaction to the lie is more likely a deep-seated and life-long committment to that which makes her feel better rather than that which may be an uncomfortable truth (probably in certain instances anyway).
That is essentially the way I view it: I put a higher value on the emotional well being of my mother in her final moments of life than I do some insignificant lapse in my own integrity or honesty. Telling someone close to you an uncomfortable truth is never easy, but if that person is not going to be dead by morning, he will have plenty of time to come to grips with the harsh reality of the truth. Telling your mother on her death bed a lie meant to comfort her causes her no harm. Any harm falls upon the shoulders of the person telling the lie. From my perspective, lying to my grandma about her dog put her mind at ease. Any blow that brought to my integrity or honesty was worth it.Now if the son's value of comforting his mother in her final moments is higher than his value of being honest even in one single occasion when such honesty would deeply hurt his mother in her final moments, he would actually preserve his integrity by lying to her in that unique occasion. -
The beauty of this scenario is that the mother would have no way of finding out that what I told her was a lie. It is my integrity that she is counting upon, which makes the lie so effective. As I said earlier, a similar situation actually happened to me--I told a death bed lie to my grandma. That was 1988. If, in your mind, that taints me as a man with no integrity, so be it. But in those 20 years, I cant think of another time where I lied to appease the emotions of another, nor do I feel that my self-esteem has in any way been damaged. Quite the contrary.If I ever have a son, hearing a lie from him that is designed to make me feel better would be a moment of disgrace and sadness. I would not want my son to be that kind of man, and to sacrifice the value of his integrity.If a mother can be happy with such a sacrifice, with a line of behavior that destroys her son's self-esteem, then she is not a good mom.
A good mom should teach her son the right principles, and tell him to always stick to them and be a man of honor.
-
I dont tell untruths to people who must then act based upon my falsehoods. That would create a victim. Lying to a person on their deathbed does not make that person a victim. I dont hold the emotions of others as primaries, but there are times when the emotions of those close to me are of more value than some insignificant loss of personal integrity. This is one of them.The fundamental tradeoff here is between one's integrity and the emotional state of another individual (one's mother in this case). In choosing to sacrifice one's integrity, one is placing the emotions of one's victim above reality. That is, one is choosing these emotions as a standard from which to determine one's actions (I believe Dr. Peikoff attributed this argument to Rand in one of his podcasts). This is the policy followed by Peter Keating in the Fountainhead. Keating consistently held the emotions of others as his highest values, and chose his actions accordingly. -
Right. And the people who dream up these scenarios have neither the ability to create anything nor the understanding of how free market operates. The answer might be best formed in the shape of question: Why would anyone put in the time, effort and investment into creating a product then price it out of reach of its target market?Also, this medicine supplier apparently has the medical knowledge to create this medicine, but none of the wisdom of economics. -
So if your mother asked you to murder, rape, and torture, you'd do that?
We were discussing a white lie that hurts no one. I dont think that applies to murder, rape and torture. Do you?
If not, then all this talk about a "debt you can never repay" is just empty emotionalism.Empty emotionalism? Hardly. If my mother had given birth to me then dropped me off at the firehouse door, then you might have something, but that is not what happened. If I cannot repay the years she spent raising me by comforting her in her final moments, then she didnt do a very good job raising me.
Its not that she cant handle the truth, its that there is no reason to force her to handle such an uncomfortable truth on her deathbed.What respect and love does it show to act like your mother is an infant who can't handle the truth?I see no virtue in being able to say that I made my mothers final moments of life miserable, but hey, I have lived a life of integrity. The grain of integrity I surrender is meaningless to me, but the value I gain is not.
-
I don't see why "having your mind at ease" when you die is supposed to be such a huge benefit anyway.
Maybe because we are talking about a persons mother. I actually faced the "Will you take care of my dog" scenario but not with my mom, but with my grandmother. When she went into the hospital for what would be her final time, she had but one thought weighing on her mind: Who would take care of her dog. None of us had either the desire or the ability to take care of the dog after her death, so what did we do? We lied. Of course. The truth was, that the dog was put down shortly after my grandma entered the hospital. Had she been told this fact, she would have spent her final hours in tears and would have rightly viewed each of us as contemptable monsters. Not only that, the person who broke the news to her would still be nursing their wounds, and grandma died 20 years ago.
Honesty and integrity are values, but not the highest values. I would gladly toss either one over the side if it meant giving my mom even a moment of peace, especially if that moment were to be her last. I owe her a debt I can never repay. And it is a debt she has never called due. If there is a decision between her mental well being in the final hours of life and my own view of integrity, then to hell with integrity. I see no virtue in patting myself on the back for my integrity knowing that it came at such a cost. Nothing could be more immoral than that.
-
I recently turned 30 (old I know, don't remind me) and I am considering replacing my wardrobe because I don't know if my current Abercrombie style still suits me. I was thinking about going Bananna Republic or J. Crew style. This got me to wondering if anyone has an opinion on what an objectivist style would be when it comes to one's wardrobe. I absolutely hate wearing dress socks though... ugh.
30?? I've got clothes in my closet older than you. Hell, some of them are so old they are actually coming back in style. Generally speaking, my wardrobe gets an overhaul every time Fedex decides to upgrade its uniforms.
-
Is it a right of liberty and property or a right to liberty and property? Or doesnt it really matter?
-
The fact still remains that Obama's going to that one church for over twenty years means only one of two things:
1) Obama shares Wright's views (and is thus being a hypocrite and a liar).
or
2) Obama doesn't have a moral spine, shown by him not explicitly disagreeing with Wright aloud.
I think this controversy has just invoked an "oh snap" moment for Obama and he's just trying to change his image, not his substance.
There is a third possibility and it flows from the following comment made by Obama at his press conference:
"The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," Obama said. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."If we take Obama at his word and believe that he is truly shocked, shocked by his former pastors beliefs, then what does that say about Obama's naivety and judgement (or lack of it)? If he can be so completely blind to the racist, anti-Americanism at the core of his so-called friend and spiritual advisor of 20 years, what sort of men will a Preisdent Obama select as his economic advisors? His foreign policy advisors? The thought of a government filled Jeremiah Wright types is horrifying.
-
It is certainly not the responsibility of the government to treat the mentally ill -- administering punishment is all that is appropriate, as far as the role of government goes.
And once the punishment has been administered by the state--say a 20 year sentence for child rape--the state then releases this mentally ill pervert back into society with the suggestion that "he seek treatment for his mental illness." How is that of any value to the children who will soon find this menace among them? Should not such predators be treated for their mental illness if they are one day to be released back into society? If they have a life prison term then, obviously, who cares. But if they are to be freed one day, why would it not be a good idea for the state to a least make an effort to treat them during imprisonment?
-
This is how I feel about Coulter exactly and how I feel about 97% of the people who vote Republican.
Is it fair to assume, then, that you will be voting for Comrade Obama this November? Or are you going to count yourself among that ignorant, unprincipled 97% that plan to vote for Mccain?
-
"If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view."
The not so hidden implication here is that faith frees ones mind from the rigid prison of atheism, when in fact it only offers an irrational escape from the constraints of reality. As for the religious impulse bit, it is hard for me to say why so many people have a such an impulse, since that is something I lack. It might have something to do the fact that for many people, reality isnt such a pretty picture. Religion often provides a suitable distraction and a cause for hope to what has been, and for many continues to be a horrible human condition.
-
I’ve never asked you to prove Saddam’s evil intentions. Re-read the thread. My request was for some proof that Saddam “threatened the West.”
If your standard of proof is a quote where Saddam says: "Hey, you in the West, I threaten you," I dont think anyone is going to be able to meet it. I think you are trying to argue that since Saddam didnt explicitly threaten the West, that the West should not have implicitly viewed him as a threat. I think you are mistaken.
Clearly, fate has laid vast quantities of oil at the feet of dictators, that is bad enough. But when you have a dictator whose intentions are evil, who seeks the military conquest of his neighbors, the domination of the Middle East, and control of the worlds most vital commodity--oil--it is in the interest of the US if not the whole world, to stop him. Unless, of course, you think it would have been better to allow him to keep Kuwait, consolidate his power, then move on Saudi Arabia. Is there "proof that Saddam wanted to sell the world less oil than any other petro-dictator?" No. Was it a risk worth taking? No, not if you view the free flow of oil as being in the national interest.
The gassing of Halabja, horrible as it was, didn’t make a dent in my ability to conduct my business or live my life.How wonderful for you. Too bad the 12,000 who died there cant rejoice with you. Needless to say, Saddam was not overthrown because he gassed the kurds. But it was just this type of barbarism, combined with his militarism in a vital part of the world that made him a threat to US interests whether you recognize it or not.
-
If you can look at Saddam's record, and not believe that allowing him to gain control over a significant portion of the world's oil supply was a significant risk, then you are beyond convincing.
I think that sums it up nicely.
-
And as I responded there is nothing to suggest that any less oil would have been available on the world market or to U.S. consumers.
That is not the only standard one uses when determining whether the invasion was in our interest or not. If the fall of Kuwait was not worthy of our attention, would a subsequent Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia done it for you? Or are you willing to wait for an actual interruption of the oil flow before you sound the alarm?
Must the U.S. invade anytime there's a weak government in the world? In that case, the Marines should prepare for landings in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of Sudan, the Republic of Colombia and many other areas around the globe.I dont think anyone here is making that argument. Do you have a particular point you wish to make, or are you just nit-picking what others have to say? I get the impression you are of the Ron Paul school of foreign policy. If not, I would be interested to hear what conditions--short of an enemy attack--you think need be present before the US launches an attack.
-
As for U.S. planes and rangers, perhaps they would not have been in harm’s way had they been patrolling actual U.S. territory.
I believe they were enforcing the terms of the surrender agreement signed by the Iraqis after the first Gulf War. As AisA noted earlier, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a threat to our nations interests.
How vital is Somalia to you or me personally?Not paticularly vital--unless of course, those who would seek to harm our country take advantage of the anarchy there. Somalia becoming another base a la Afganistan might make even you view it as vital.
-
As opposed to your argument that amounts to God exists because I believe He exists. That puts the burden upon you, my friend, to prove your own contention, not upon me to disprove that which you have not proven.On closer inspection of your argument it amounts to God doesn't exist because I don't believe he exists.
You made the case that belief in God was somehow fundamental because there has always been some sort of a belief in a Diety throughout human history. I say that does not make it fundamental. All that says to me is that historically, man has been incredibly ignorant. If you want to cast aside reason and reality and believe in something that isnt there, go ahead. Faith is a belief in the absence of reason. It is a common theist trick to put forth an article of faith then demand that non-believers disprove it. Prove your God exists and I will have nothing to say, will I.WHY IS IT IGNORANT?? Prove it is not a fundamental desire. Do you honestly believe there isn't something special about love. Can you actually refute ANY part of my argument without actual proof. I mean come on now. You really are just saying it is not a fundamental desire because I don't want it to be. Please step your arguments up.
Rand endorsed Nixon?
in Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
Posted
I agree. The worrisome part about McCain, however, is his willingness to compromise. If he wins, I fear he will want to accomodate his democratic foes just to get things done. On the other hand, he is a stubborn cuss on certain issues. He is not likely to give an inch on the war on terror, Iraq, spending, and possibly taxes.
On the other hand, an Obama victory will be hailed as a mandate for "change." Whatever meat he chooses to put on the bones of that empty slogan will be said to be just what America voted for. With potentially sizable majorities in both houses and a fawning press, Obama could, in fact, bring about exactly the type of changes none of us wishes to see.