Miles White

If this is true, then according to Rush's logic you can also count out Arnold Schwarzenagger, Rudy Guiliani, Barry Goldwater, and plus somebodies got to tell him to stop quoting from Atlas Shrugged. We can't be reading books written by evil pro-choicers either.

I couldn't have summarized these candidates better myself. I absolutely agree with Dr. Peikoff's assessment.

I agree. The moral argument easily precedes any practical benefits of such a system.

Are you saying that establishing a social security program would prevent it? Governments already obtain their weaponry through private capital and we don't have any problems now. The only difference between how the government would work in a free society and how the government works already is the fact that now it has a welfare state in a free society it wouldn't.

Why? And what alternative would you consider better? At who else's expense? Hearing those words uttered in the same sentence together makes you think that Bernanke the FedCzar has never even herd of a little thing called "Laissez-faire Capitalism" before.

Happy Birthday, GC!

When you are positive that he can't be rehabilitated, and continues to pose himself as a threat to you. When it potentially threatens your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Michael Moore wishes he was as clever as Toohey.

If McCain in fact does win... get ready for 4 years of socialism and anti-Wall Street rhetoric.

Poor Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave.

As an overall all love of life in general, you should respect everyone's only tool they possess to further it. If you initiate force against someone else, you render their ability of reason to be meaningless which would be the moral equivalent of saying "Isn't in my self interest to kill everybody and have the entire planet to myself?" If you evaluate the long term effects, you'll find that life becomes very difficult to live when your the only one left who can think, therefore you should respect everybody's rights to life, liberty, and property so that you and everybody else will be able to further their own existence through the free market place of values.

Nancy Pelosi?

I guess this is what happens when you rip off the politics of Objectivism and simultaneously reject it's metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. "Let's destroy the evil major socialist parties by uniting the minor socialist parties to implement their principals instead!"

Jesus doesn't scare me, you can't fear something that doesn't exist. Jesus Freaks scare the piss out of me.

It's not about defending Kuwait so much as it is about destroying a potential enemy. If a rapid dog ate your neighbor alive and you watched the scenario go down, would you stand there and do nothing until the dog came charging toward you? Or would you grab a gun and try killing it regardless of wether it's a threat to you? If we're going to take defending natural rights seriously we must act to put an end to any potential threat as soon as possible regardless if it's our "business" to intervene or not.

Or well have to redesign our public transportation system to install hooks on the ceiling of bus's so that the vampires can hang upside down when they ride.

I'm way ahead of you on that one. Hope it hasn't been copy righted.

Prove it. How do you know that man has never lived as a hermit in a state of nature? Children do not have the rational faculty to be trusted to wield natural rights completely on their own per se. For that time being, they must use their parents as a guide, which is different from having them distribute candy and toys from the parents ability according to the children's need. I would feel more uncomfortable if a retard had the right to drive (Pardon the rude language). Does your philosophy treat retards differently? I would be pleased to hear your solution. You wanting to have sex with an attractive woman isn't a selfish act? Extract lust from the scenario and you'll see just how "communalistic" or "altruistic" the act really is. People don't have sex because they hate it. Then I must not be a human, because I've never felt a damn thing that you've listed. If your not arguing for us to throw our minds away into the "collective abyss" then what are you arguing about? The whole point of your post is to prove somehow that all human beings are dependent upon each other for survival. Even though the standard of living is improved greatly when men are introduced into a society, it takes certain types of individuals to do the thinking that makes life so much simpler for everybody else to live. The Atlas's of the world, so to speak, that carry the burden of the rest of the world upon their shoulders and whom of which are spat upon by people like you who proclaim the virtues of the lowest savage over the greatest thinker. I would like to see a society of proletariats try and construct a light bulb without Thomas Edison to have laid out the plans for such an invention. Biological arguments are not legitimate means to determine mans nature. All cells reproduce A sexually, does that mean it is within our human interest to reproduce the same way? The fundamental flaw within your argument rests upon the assumption that just because something apart of nature acts a certain way, so should man when in fact it is the opposite. The most magnificent feature of man is his ability to defy nature by making his environment adapt to him instead of it being vice versa. Man is able to accomplish such goals when he/she is allowed the freedom to use their own reason. Reason, is purely an individual aspect. Collectives cannot think because collectives don't exist. I cannot ask a group of people a question and expect to receive a group answer from the group brain. Biologically, mans mind doesn't work that way (Not like biological arguments mean much for this subject matter, but still).

I'm addicted to chai tea. That stuff is not only delicious but good for you too. I highly recommend it as an alternative for all soft drinks.

Every time I hear some one give me crap about another apocalypse, I utter two simple letters and a number to them: Y2K

I think reading the state which I laughed at is rather self evident. Wether he's an "Isolationist" or a "Pacifist" (or what ever title you prefer) doesn't matter. The fact that does however is that his foreign policy is terrible as I've addressed in the preceding post. Squandering over which part of his foreign policy is being discussed is a useless and petty argument that tries to distract those whom you try and convert from understanding the bigger picture. Personal or not, HE STILL SUPPORTS IT POLITICALLY. Otherwise he would not have purposed bills for it. What if I ran for president and ran on a strict anti alcohol campaign? Oh don't worry, I personally love drinking the stuff, I'm just against it politically. That makes everything so much better now doesn't it? I'm not worried about being able to get an abortion. I'm not even a woman. My worry is a deeper, fundamental ethical issue not a narrow minded pragmatic one. I'll repeat again, "BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO TELL A WOMAN WHAT TO DO WITH HER OWN BODY?" I would be curious to see how you would react if you meet someone who was raped. By the way, your last example is perfectly justified. A landlord most certainly can and should evict customers if he has a good reason for it. If he doesn't, then he should still be aloud to do it. He'll just have to suffer the consequences of not having anymore customers. Maybe if fathers could get pregnant, otherwise no. The fetus is attached to the woman's body, ergo it is her property not yours. This coming from a man who thinks that a womens fetus is their property and that landlords shouldn't be aloud to evict customers. I know what my convictions are, and it'll take a little more than name calling to change that. Even if thats how your use to executing debates. Yes. It is. As I've said before, thats not good enough. Should the states be alloud to hold slaves too? Why not? As long as it's not being done by the Federal government it has to be fine right? You're still ignoring the importance for law to be objective. To validate wether a single act is right or wrong. The governments only purpose behind it's establishment is to act as a protector of rights, how well do you think they'll be protecting rights if the Federal government allows the states to enslave people? The biggest thing that annoys me most about Republicans is their blind misunderstanding of States rights vs. Individual rights. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING. What if it's not? So the teachers are going to leave the room with a couple students to pray outside while atheist students get left in class and do nothing all that time. Kinda sounds like a punishment for being an atheist if you ask me. There is also that little thing called a First Amendment which says that "There shall be no established religion." Not there shall be no established religion except in public schools. Even though many of you fundamentalists like to pretend that it'll go away if you just ignore it, similar to how they pretend that God will always be there to keep you safe until a disaster occurs, then it's our own fault for being sinners. First of all, yes I am strongly against religion being performed in public areas. The fact that your not just comes to show how bad the times are getting. Second of all, This is not a debate forum. I'm not debating, I'm telling you that your wrong on fundamental issues. There is a big difference. As for myself not having explained enough, I said everything that I needed to say. If your to much of a fundamentalist, pacifistic, republican to see my reasons then that is your own fault not mine. I'm not here to teach you about your wrong ways I'm only making an argument against what you've said. Your tolerance for religion being combined with capitalism is disgusting at best. Your attempts at converting me into a Ron Paul hippie is proven futile, even with all the smug childish statements. I honestly shouldn't have wasted my time with you. P.S. Yes I'm aware of the fact that I have also made several rude statements back at you that I couldn't help but say for laughs. Just in case you were considering calling me a hypocrite any time in the future, it would just.

You don't think Islam is a threat to our freedom after the murders of Theo Van Gogh or Pim Fortuyn for performing the simple act of speaking out against it? Not to mention the death warrant still upon Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I don't see Christians or Jews murdering innocent lives simply because they weren't Christian or Jewish enough, and don't think that it's just a group of terrorists making a harmless religion look bad either, their irrationality and hostility towards reason and civilization is written down within their own holy documents. The only Islamic people who don't believe in murder as a legitimate means of imposing their goals, are the Islamic people who aren't extreme enough in their views. To those who do hold more liberalized Islamic views, I only hope that there is still a chance to convince them to give it up. You should watch the incredible video "Fitna" made by dutch politician Gert Wilder for further information about this threat. Islam is a religion inherently bent upon destroying western culture and human progress as we know it. We cannot afford to elect leaders who favor their stagnation over our progress. Sorry, but this made me laugh. I've done enough research on him thank you. As a matter in fact the more research I did, the more flaws I found in his entire "philosophy". Thats why he support overturning Roe vs. Wade right? By what right do you think you have to tell a woman what to do with her own body anyway? Neither was I "extremely" nor "wrong" with any of my statements that I still stand by. These two facts, I found exceptionally horrifying about him: Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you're going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it's been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That's not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I'm making. We're all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says "no abortion," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order. Paul co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment: H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools. H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. Proposed Legislation: H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha) H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson) S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond) H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham) H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts) H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.)

I think this video is very appropriate for the subject matter.

The first reason would be the fact that at this point in the election, he doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination. So supporting his presidential bid would be futile. The second reason would be his less-than-desirable, do nothing foreign policy of pacifism and isolationism that would lead to the loss of an ally (Israel). It would not be wise at all to be loosing an ally in a time where we need them most in order to crush Islam. The third reason would be his stance of immigration (which is inherently anti-free trade), and of corse his "pro-life" stances which no one who identifies themselves as an Objectivist should be endorsing. Period.

How does it create a "bad image", and how does it make "parenting more difficult?" I don't know about you, but it would be allot more difficult to use minor punishments against a spoiled child for 18 years than to simply spank him when he's young and have him learn from his mistake for life. I use to get spanked on the bare bottom with a leather belt every time I got into a fight with one of my sisters, and boy did you bet I learned my lesson since then. I have never initiated a fight in my entire life since then nor have I EVER been tempted to do so.