Spaghettim0nst3r

This is just like any other Heavily Moderated Fundamentalist forum, descenting voices are silenced through deletions or breaking their posts apart detracting from their meaning. I'm not posting on this forum any more. My advice: Social Skills - Get Some

Do not misrepresent my position by attempting to alienate cause from effect. There are MORE reasons for this conflict other than "they terrorists hate our freedom." A more SIGNIFICANT factor is our foreign policy. Heh, and what exactly do you know about Iran? ...aside from the speculative? Rudy Giuliani isn't going to lead this country down a path for properly fighting the war. It will be as indecisive, elongated, and costly as both Iraq and Vietnam, strangely enough because Neo-Cons were behind both of those (undeclared) wars. The only justifiable War (in the real world, and not in your Objectivist One World Police State) is a defensive and decisive war based on actual evidence instead of speculation and propaganda. I'm not completely blaming the U.S., and I'm not completely going to blame Iran, because in truth both parties have contributed to the conflict (not equally), and continue to do so. Wrong again, I take the position that the U.S. has largely contributed to the state of it's foreign relations through bad foreign policy. No instigator needed to exist between the two countries, our ideologies are virtually the exact opposite and were in conflict before there were people between the two communicating about it. Don't know what Ron Paul thinks about that. I know it was a directly provoked attack, but I don't think Japan was "innocent" or "poor" either. I think I've heard Ron Paul mention the Lusitania (WWI), which was also a staged event to sway public opinion about entering the war. No, I don't think it does. The issue is more complex than that I'm afraid, because it's not a question whether or not Iran has a right to exist... the question is whether or not our government and military is strategically/philosophically capable of dealing with the problem in an effective way that will not produce extended conflict. Using the examples of it's behavior in the middle east thusfar, and it's illustrious history of unresolved conflict, and the ever popular mismanagement in the Vietnam War one can only conclude that War with Iran is going to further inflame the situation in the middle east. This government (if you can even call it American) is not interested in defending Americans or it's own self-interest, if it were the middle east would be DUST right now, and its surrounding countries waiting for radioactive decay to wear off so that it can become habitable again. This Neo-Con government is INVESTED in the perpetuation of military conflict, as evidenced by it's own ridiculously restrictive Rules of Engagement. These things aren't happening in a vacuum, there is a REASON these rules are so restrictive, just like they were in Vietnam. The only way to effectively deal with the middle east situation is to get out of it and posture as much as we did against the soviets to stave off conflicts... (it's been strongly suggested by our own agencies FBI,CIA that one major step toward alleviating conflicts is to stop occupations) while we break apart the governments involvement in our economy, so that this military-industrial (fascist) complex doesn't exist any longer... and the government can really actually serve it's intended purpose. I agree, but I do not believe that threat is entirely because of our Philosophical differences. It's a very difficult balancing act when trying to figure out what exactly contributes to conflicts between the United States and the middle east. I don't think it's a debatable point to suggest our occupations play no role, I happen to think (because of what the CIA/FBI are telling everyone) the role this plays is significant.

No, it shows that we should stop giving them reasons to want to attack, because you'll never stop them from "being able" to attack U.S. short of turning the world into an already unmanagable police state. You cannot bully the world into giving up the luxuries we enjoy. So your lack of knowledge is justificatoin for war, in your opinion? Thats incredibly unprincipled. You're right, what is important is that it was fed to us as though it were a certain fact, even though it was propoganda to further the Neo Con agenda (as we later learned). If you assume it is their position. Your fears and concerns do not automatically become credible because you can feel afraid and concerned about their uranium enrichment, and that kind of emotional wreckage should not guide foreign policy. My equation of feeling threatened is not, 'having military bases in the middle east and them being mad about it.' They ought to be mad about it, and we should get out, come home... and actually engage in self-defense... instead of offensively establishing a police state overseas. They already do, hence the reason we did not mutually annihilate ourselves (us and the soviets) in the cold war. Iran is an example equivalent to Japan in WWII. We provoked Japan by freezing their assets, halting trade, and helping their enemies after declaring a neutral non-interventionist policy. The administration wanted into the conflict, although unecessary and needed an event to act as a catalyst for prompting our involvement. http://members.tripod.com/rationalrevoluti...nese_attack.htm Our government is working hard toward a new Pearl Harbor, to prompt us into conflict with Iran. You've been Neo-Conned. Iran has explained it's enrichment program. We persist because of suspicion, not because of evidence. Countries do not need to be constantly engaged in apologetics to the United States, they only need to grasp that military aggression and conflict ensures their own annihilation.

You're not making any points... you're just quoting sensationalist propoganda because it provides your neo-con candidate with some respectability, if you accept the premise that Iran's intention IS to develope weapons. Your assumption in the issue is that Iran necessarily will use their "crude weapons grade uranium" to build nuclear weapons... and will necessarily attack us with them, when it's been expressed very clearly that Iran (A third world country) is interested in uranium enrichment to provide itself with efficient energy. Nuclear energy is insanely efficient, we should be doing the same here in the united states instead of increasing defense spending by billions annually (link. (Defense spending really means offensive spending btw). While this is a valid (yet remote) possibility that Iran's intention is aggression, our CIA friend here tells us this is far from the case. The conflict thusfar has been fueled by our middle east occupation. As of 2005, the United States occupies over 700 military bases in over 36 countries worldwide. link Since 2001, the cumulative expenditure by the U.S. government on Operation Enduring Freedom has exceeded $150 Billion. For 2007, the budget was raised to a total of US$532.8 Billion According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US $956,000,000,000. I supposed thats ok to some of you, because after all they are just printing the money. =\ I guess you would have everyone believe thats not provokation. Typical excommunication. Instead of addressing the CIA authority I presented, you throw a tantrum. Have some integrity and defend your position, or change it. The CIA tells us, blowback played a major factor in contributing the 9/11 (if you buy that terrorists can be that coordinated). Blowback from what? Blowback from U.S. Military Occupation/provokation.

i.e., "Blank Out" Reality is knocking... Anyone home? Michael Scheuer is his name btw, if you'd like to look into it. He's just former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit. Clearly not an authority. Source

You want to rush to the conclusion that these weapons are inevitably going to be used for warheads, You want to assume no persuasion is possible after, or before, they attain said warheads. You don't want to consider the immense benefit a third world country will gain from nuclear power. How about some less sensationalist facts for consideration. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/the-fa...ium-enrichment/ This sensationalism and fear mongering (for the purpose of furthering the Neo Con agenda) has been occuring for a long time. Middle of last year they were talking about, "Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...=top_world_news Not enriched low grade Uranium, they were certain Nuclear Warheads were rolling out... but that (seemingly immanent threat) never materialized did it? This one won't either. Don't let them terrorists win guys. Way to go. *** Mod's note: Moved responses about Iran (not specifically Guiliani's policy) to the Iran thread. -sN ***

As I mentioned over in the Ron Paul thread, when the game plan becomes clearer.. when you're dealing with an actual state instead of "the terrorists" things change. When faced with the prospect of mutual destruction, from both the United States and Israel vs Iran, they will opt out of the conflict and peacefully coexist as did the Soviets. It's much easier to see this individual Jihadists going off, because they are isolated radicals... but a State is a target we're capable of focusing on... and individual radicals will bare in mind that they carry with them the capability to provoke mutual annihilation on a civilizational scale. Right, and while the Neo-Cons (like Giuliani) remain in power those rules will exist to perpetual an endless cycle of war. Ron Pauls solution for non-intervention, declaring war, and waging war... are ideal. Instead we spearhead all operations in the middle east instead of laying back and allowing the world to hold itself accountable. We the United States should not assume the role of world police, we need to engage in the business of self-defense instead of this intense offense. We are postured off the coast of Iran to provoke a conflict as I write this, and tensions would ease if we were to give them some breathing room, some air to think... and consider what the consequences of their actions are. As I said, individual cells of radical jihadists will behave much differently than a state. You also shouldn't elect a candidate that will most certainly bring about the provocation of the war. We didn't need to provoke the Soviets in order to deflate the situation, and yet that's exactly what the Neo-Cons are doing to Iran... attempting provocation. Let them attack Israel (a nuclear armed country) and Israel will retaliate in an appropriate way. (personally I think Israel should have wiped out Palistine before it was even a state)... by why should we pay for their abstaining from justifiable self defense? Their pandering to the U.N. (Neo-Con One World Government) is a big reason the middle east hasn't been "delt with" yet. Giuliani's immoral stance on abortion is no different. "I hate abortion, I wish abortion would never happen, I want to discourage abortions" Giuliani's inept economic platform is my biggest problem, and his goal of provoking a war with Iran, before it's necessary is my second biggest problem. Same here, it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, and no one is going to deny the right either way. Is it necessarily the most rational position to deal with irrational nations in an aggressive way with such a rush? When you take the example of the Soviet conflict (because I think it's exactly the same as Iran will be)... there are clearly other options available other than conquering more countries, establishing more bases over seas, becoming far more spread, far more entangled, than self-defense can justify. The notion of mutual self-destruction is a powerful one... the Soviets were not prepared to march down the road to nuclear winter, and neither will the Iranians. I don't think you correctly understand Ron Pauls foreign policy if your perception is, "paleoconservative." Ron Paul is not against going to war when it is necessary, but he is against going to war in way that prolongs wartime... i.e., not declaring the war through congress, applying strict rules of engagement to limit our effectiveness. He is for getting it done as quickly as possible when it is called for, just like true non-interventionists should, we don't need to spend another 4 years policing the people in Iraq for them to grow up and deal with themselves. If they mutually self destruct, thats no skin of my nose... if they form another threatening state that needs demolished, we will destroy them again... but the worst thing we can do is continue this half-assed effort which is doing very little more than emboldening the very enemy we're trying to snuff out. Neo-Con foreign policy will continue that trend.

GOP 9/5 Text in voters prefer Ron Paul 33% Ron Paul 16% Giuliani Maybe if Giuliani weren't basing his campaign off "the evil terrorists" and "oh wow I'm great in NY" he might be able to persuade some thinkers. Rudy Giuliani is a Neo-Con, not a Constitutionalist, regardless of what he.... and faux newz is trying to sell you. It's so obvious to tonight, the air time given to the Rudy McRomney show, in comparison to the other candidates, would be a very telling graph to look at. They even accuse voters of cheating. Both Shammity and Clone said Ron Paul supporters were "dialing in their text votes" more than once. What morons, and biased morons at that. As Lance Adams points out, you cannot vote more than once from one cellphone. And there is no dial!" Because it's just a product of his Christian background (which no candidate lacks). His respect for the constitution, aside from Roe v. Wade is consistent. Not quite encapsulating my position regarding his philosophy, but an honestly biased error... and you're forgiven. I consider him to be just like all Christians, severely less than devout, and insofar as his political views coher with Christian philosophy, his political philosophy will be contradictory... the abortion issue is a good example. His stance on Homosexuality highlights an important point, that he respects the concept of individual rights much more than he respects his religion. He is not going to pass a federal law banning homosexual marriages, because he respects their rights as individuals. Regardless of his conflicting inclinations are about them. Two conflicting philosophies are at war on the issue, individual rights vs Christianity, and individual rights won out. It's a conflict every politician goes through because in our culture its about marketing to stupid people more often than it is about communicating ideas, so candidates uninfluenced by religious belief are a few years down the road still, realistically. So yes, I agree with you completely in that his principles are in conflict, as any issue between individual rights and Christian doctrine must be, sometimes Christianity wins out (abortion) and some times individual rights win out. His mind is a bit clouded on the nature of human beings, in that he believes life begins at conception (even though individual rights do not)... that in combination with his religious bias enables him to rationalize "individual rights" with "killing a fetus" so only insofar as they two "seemingly coher" in his world view, will Christian philosophy be able to play a role in his political philosophy... which is a GOOD thing. So it's an oversimplification to think his philosophy is meaningless to me, quite the contrary I think I've accurately weighed his views based on his positions, and I find them acceptable when the context of who he is running against is provided. Like tonight, they all barked about "lowering taxes" or "substituting a fair tax" instead of an income tax... and Ron Paul being consistent declared Income Taxes would be done away with... along with the CIA (unnecessary organization) Welfare, Social Security, the IRS, and an abundance of other government operations which involve themselves in the economy (fascism). Getting the government out of the economy will work a lot of the problems out which are seemingly unrelated to that. I'm just poking holes in the popular candidate on this forum, Giuliani from what I can gather so far (even though I'm admittedly very new), because I think he is vastly less preferable to Ron Paul. Ron Paul by the way, would eliminate Medicare. It's not his religious views that are primarily driving him as a political leader, it's his respect (even if not fully understood) for the ideas of the founding fathers, individual and property rights. You think abortion is a big deal, but I put it into context with the issues dealing with the Economy. Handing abortions handed to the state level doesn't limit freedom 'really' because people just step over the state line and get it done. It is effectively a non-issue regardless of which way the state handles it... and as I pointed out earlier, the only reason Ron Paul becomes motivated to oppose abortion is under the guise (rationalized and wrong admittedly) of upholding the "individual rights of a fetus"... which we all agree don't exist. How about that Income Tax which takes form you (unapportioned) sums of money every year and spends them on nothing but paying off the national debt which exists because of our fiat money system (both of which Ron Paul will dispose of)? That violation of property rights occurs on a much broader scale, it's just not in the news... I've recommended the "Fiat Empire" film on here before, and I will again. You can find it on google video, it's worth watching. So again I can't stress enough, this man is a genuine enlightenment thinker, as secular in his political views as the founding fathers were, and when faced with an issue which pits one philosophy against another in which reconciliation is impossible (unlike abortion) he will choose the correct philosophy, and does... When we have no choice. We could, but shouldn't, be overly zealous to march around the world destroying other peoples land... we should do exactly as Ronald Reagan did to end the Cold War, until it becomes apparent that persuasion will not work, and then voraciously fight the war without these restrictive "rules of engagement" without the U.N. approval (Ron Paul is very anti World Government, which means he's against the U.N.) Hypothetical: Ron Paul becomes president. We immediately pull out of Iraq, and leave those people to themselves. The government assumes it's non-interventionist position, refraining from entangling alliances which do not benefit us. (Isreal is a nuclear power BTW, they don't need our "defense", if Iran attacks Israel, Iran will be annihilated.) We posture just as Ron Paul explained in the debate tonight (9/5) that we have the capability to annihilate rogue nations like Iran, but we would prefer to get along. We back off posturing aggressively, incitefully, backing off our boats near Iranian borders, and let them make their own minds up. Pursue nuclear weapons and face destruction, or act reasonably and coexist. As we saw with the Soviets, when faced with the notion of mutual destruction (on a civilizational scale), you'll find less "radical islamists" as willing to sacrifice themselves for god... because all of a sudden the glory of Jihad becomes the reality of civilizational destruction. What we have no is nothing but a puppet show with limitations on our capabilities, and very few productive goals in the middle east... while wasting so much money, lives etc.. in an ineffectual policy. If forced, but it will take a declaration of war from congress for us to engage in that, as the constitution demands. Voting on a single issue is moronic. I don't believe Ron Pauls commitment to restoring the republic to a limited constitutional republic is a "theory." He's quite explicit about it. Funding any adoption is bogus, and discriminating on the basis of sexual preference is equally bogus. Ron Paul would be contradictory if he were to vote in favor of federally funding adoptions by heterosexuals, but I don't believe he's been exposed to legislation having to vote one way or the other on that. Correct me if I'm wrong. In principle what he opposes is the size of government and it's role... voting FOR homosexual adoption would contradict that premise... so again, you possible have a point... but I don't see this as being a direct consequence of his religious views, because it's perfectly consistent with his political. I've been attempting to find in his record where he has supported, or voted for, federally funding (heterosexual) adoption and I have not found it. If it were found he would be caught in a contradiction, if not... his limited government philosophy is still consistent. He ran on the libertarian ticket I think, in the 1990's... don't remember when (I was a young buck then). Because it's circumstantial that his political views and interpretive religious views "kinda sorta" mesh on the issue, in that he treats a fetus like an individual. I don't endorse his interpretation, but I recognize it for what it is, a compromise on his behalf that is completely circumstantial on the issue... when by default when religious views conflict with his political views, he chooses to reject his religious teaching, take the issue of homosexual marriage for instance. Not the federal governments job to deal with it. They are individuals, with rights, and I think it's safe to assume that in the absence of a law restricting their marriage by the federal government, the supreme court will rule in favor of their individual right to marry in a case over the issue (which I do believe will occur once states begin outlawing it). That being the natural progression of our system, I believe another figurative Roe v Wade will emerge about whether the state has the right to limit a homosexuals right to marry who he/she pleases, and since state law cannot contradict constitutional freedoms, the supreme court will over rule the fundies as it did in Roe v Wade... and the issue will settle down for a while. Ron Pauls position is to adopt the philosophy of negative rights, no one needs to give them permission to enter into a private contractual agreement (marriage), only when a state attempts to deny this, will the their rights prevail. I hope my clarification made sense. This is the case, but no more so in Ron Paul than in other candidates who would for instance (Giuliani) hand you a national RFID card so "the terrorists don't win" which is a non-religiously motivated violation of privacy. Clearly an invalid example, because of the circumstance explained above. The conflict, and alignment of opposing philosophical viewpoints within the man are prioritized correctly and only through misinterpretation (treating a fetus like an individual) does the line ever blur... and as long as the line is definite.. his political philosophy over rules his religious. RON PAUL 08 WOOT!

A lot of spelling bee winners on this board apparently. You should all spend less time attempting to insult one another and more time actually discussing the topic. Focus? (Like I give a fuck how many times I spell Giuliani name wrong)

I think the Objectivist movement has completely bought into all of the sensationalism going on in politics to further the neo-con agenda, for perpetual war. Of course Objectivists don't accept "perpetual war" on that pretense, but in the process of evading the fact that when the neo-cons handle war, thats what it becomes, they allow themselves (through narrowness of perspective) to become accomplices to them. Meanwhile it ignores how completely ill informed and ineffectual the neo-cons attempts at handling problems you percieve to share are. The middle east is a sham on purpose. Who do you think is writing the debilitating rules of engagement, and why? Do a smudge of research into the topic.

Link? Searched for 10 minutes solid... nothing. Exactly, if you can't recognize that a libertarian is "less evil" than a neo-con you've lost it. Which position? His position stating that we ought to actually declare war? Or his position stating that we ought to fight, and end it as quickly as possible? His position about avoiding entangling alliances? Nonintervention, Containment, or Diplomacy? Yea you should actively not try to discover what they are... because voting on a single issue makes you "an informed voter." ...amirite? It's true, however it's irrelevant for a few reasons. 1) Ron Paul (and indeed no president) can single handedly change that. Were he capable our faithhead president would have done it already. So you have nothing to worry about. IT'S A NON-ISSUE. 2) The apparent favorite on this board is no better, he encourage the state to tax you to fund the abortions of other people. *** Mod's note: Some Ron Paul -specific responses have been moved to the Ron Paul thread. -sN ***

I just gave you a link. Visit it again.. His 89' Opinion hasn't changed.. and another He believes it to be, "morally wrong." "I hate abortion." But encouraging states to steal from you, through taxation, and give your money to irresponsible would-be mothers is tolerable I guess. Insults are not arguments. Feel like a big boy pointing out spelling errors? 1) Iran is a third world country without a significant military. Are you aware of what that means? It means the only impact you can have in that country is turning into a police state for a few years like Iraq, and then giving them "the gift" of democracy, i.e., doing absolutely no good at all except giving them a convenient nicely packaged enemy figure to unite against and actually fight. 2) They are a decade away from developing nuclear technology. All of the, "OMG They're Making NUKES OMG" is sensationalism, and you've apparently bought into it. We're not going to war with Iran. If we do our forces will have attached to them as restrictive (if not more so) rules of engagement similar to what they now have in Iraq, Afghanistan, and what they once had placed on them in Vietnam. [gvideo]http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-7456931596878368112&hl=en[/gvideo] I agree with Ron Paul, we're likely to get another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, and it will likely occur to affect public opinion, swaying it into largely supporting a war with Iran - where none is necessary. You're blurring the difference between moderate Islam and radical Islam, by allowing your hatred of faith based religious ideologies clump them together. I agree they are equally terrible, but not equally threatening. Not to mention if we do go to war we'll do it in the name of, "Spreading Democracy." Instead of anything worthwhile. Thats working out well in Iraq btw. Fact: Iran should be delt with. Fact: U.S. foreign policy is incapable of dealing with Iran correctly, and we will exacerbate the problem by getting involved militarily. Ron Pauls overall foreign policy is non-intervention and containment. When war is necessary, i.e., in self-defense... Ron Paul is for Declaring War instead of rushing into a bullshit war, like the war in Iraq, and winning it quickly. Did I mention how well thats working out? Clearly you're a single issue kinda voter, which makes you really informed. Fact: Neither will Juliani wage a war to win it, but Juliani WILL rush into Iran and exacerbate the problem, only to find himself restricted beyond belief in our ability to solve the problem. The CIA spends more of it's time taping your phones, monitoring your internet activity, and generally invading your privacy in every way it can creatively imagine, than it does gaining useful actionable intelligence. Wanna know what paranoia looks like? Behold: The graph is not unique, and it is that imbalanced and disproportionate to the rest of the worlds spending. Anyway, war with Iran is not the most important issue in this election. The opportunity Ron Paul offers is a unique one, to limit the size and scope of government, is of much greater value. Juliani's platform consists entirely of war. Ron Paul gets into all of the communistic aspects that have injected themselves into our once honorable system of government. Ron Pauls Platform: No Fed No Welfare A way out of Social Security No Regulation on health care No rogue wars No Fiat currency No 16th ammendment Anti-New World Order on every front. Juliani's got nothing but lip service for any of this.

Consistent with Objectivist principles? Best candidate in Decades? State sponsored abortions? How could a lack of government intervention "violate the constitutional rights" of anyone? Why should the government have a right to steal my money and give it to irresponsible women? Health care "reform" for Rudy means "giving more people access to it" (intentionally left vague) through access to insurance? What right does the government have to decide who deserves healthcare, or who DESERVES access to health insurance? Answer: None Juliani is the antithesis of the Objectivist position of Lazzie Faire on this issue... The Lazzie Faire approach WOULD be to leave it a lone completely, stop regulating it and let the market balance itself. Rudy Juliani is going to mishandle the war in the same fashion it's currently being mishandled. He's not explicitly committed to declaring War in the way Ron Paul is, and he will keep us entangled all over the world indefinitely in the name of defeating an enemy that doesn't exist. It's a totalitarian scare tactic... hitler used it against the russians... it worked... bush used it against Iraq... it worked... Juliani is campaigning on it... it's not working... They're not dedicated to maintaining self defense... they are dedicated to remaining entangled overseas for as long as possible. Ron Paul: Declare the War (unlike Vietnam and Iraq) and Win it! Juliani is a Neo-Con You can bet we won't declare war on Iran when Juliani plunges us into that entanglement... but we'll be there for a decade instead of Crushing them and leaving (which is what Ron Paul would do). Can you imagine all of the limitations imposed on our military being imposed once again on us (as they were in Vietnam and in Iraq) in Iran? Thats a much bigger project than Iraq... Declare War, Remove the Limitations on the military, GET IT DONE. Juliani Won't. Juliani is a vote for more of the same indecisive garbage and recession of freedoms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InsKt6CtrTw this is whats up www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sct0k5IfuBI www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlDbRa4j2AA

Juliani is a tongue and cheek constitutionalist. Abortion/gay marriage are distraction issues that the president in reality has very little influence on. He's dishonest even by the standards of a politician. I think the only reason he's even using the terminology "constitutionalist" is because Ron Paul is gaining popularity because of his positions against the FED, income tax, social security, welfare, the CIA, and most other unnecessary government interventions into the economy, including the dept of Education and government education in general. Juliani doesn't give a shit about any of that. He's a terrible leader, and the firefighters of his home town are trying to tell the country why. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu5NbBzNa4Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCuNRqFNOBY He's seems to campaign on terrorism... what ideas does he ACTUALLY hold to? How about a "vote for me or get bombed" threat? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mEEjX6j_f4 + He's a moron as far as understanding foreign policy goes. Ron Paul destroys him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKITUOl0NBc Yes Juliani, blow back exists, read a book... I can't believe anyone seriously considers him likable.

Dr. Peikoff recognizes the culture war going on right now with the rise of Christian evangelism, and it being provoked both by conflict with science, and conflict between Islam. He's right on the money unless Ron Paul gets the republican nomination (ron paul being somewhat of a special case for the republican party). Ron Paul is the exact opposite from a vote for a theocracy, because his main platform is constitutionalism and limited government. It's unlikely that Ron Paul will get the republican nomination, but his popularity is growing very rapidly (winning several straw polls already). If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination I believe I will most likely be voting Democrat this time around.

There are a lot of reasons I support Ron Paul in 08. I'm convinced he's the only candidate worth supporting. The cons first, He is very much against abortion, but when taken into context with the rest of his campaign this presents no real threat to limitations of freedom for women, because Ron Paul is campaigning on limiting the governments involvement on so many fronts he would render the government incapable of becoming involved in that issue. Secondly Ron Paul cannot solely pass a law by himself completely banning abortion, if this were possible for the president, that kind of law would have already been past by the faith head Bush. So this position of his is of no real significance. This is the only Con I perceive. The Pro's: Ron Paul is for actually declaring War when we go to War, and doing everything in our power to end the conflict as quickly as possible and return home with as few as possible casualties of our own. Whether it be Korea, Iran, Pakistan, or whatever other engagement we participate in he is explicitly against it becoming entangling. Quick resolutions to conflicts and non-interventionism. Neither Vietnam or Iraq were declared wars, and both are being lengthened because of the foreign policy of nation building and because our rules of engagement severely limit our ability to get the job done. It's been completely mishandled despite whatever good has come from it. Ron Paul has vowed to abolish the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and our Fiat (debt-based) currency system, the welfare state, offer a way out of social security. These (the economic issues) are by Far I believe the strongest points for his campaign, and they are also unique to his campaign. If you're unfamiliar with how destructive Central Banking, and Fiat Currency systems are, check out this movie... it will give you a rough introduction to the ideas... (and entertain you) Fiat Currency [gvideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531[/gvideo] The reason I believe his economic standpoint is the most important is because it effects so many other things. Take for instance this web page here talking about the 10 Planks of Communism being fullfilled right now, present day, in America. The State's violations of individual liberties cannot be achieved without all of the control on the economy, and Karl Marx understood this when he fashioned these planks. Read through them in the linked page above, and notice both how unaddressed these issues are for all other candidates running, and how eloquently addressed they are in Ron Pauls campaign. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist, which means he actually acknowledges his oath, unlike the faith head in office now, to uphold the principles set forth in the constitution in this Republic.

I have that thought when I see "leaders" like this often. This resurgence is very real and very scary though. I'm sure most of you know about the Jesus Camp documentary. Evangelical Christians are explicitly training warriors in most barbarous sense of the word. Dawkins I really appreciate on this issue because he criticizes the idea of pushing religious belief onto children, describing it as psychological abuse in his documentary "The Root of All Evil" The God Delusion and The Virus of Faith.

This question being asked is only an opportunity for Objectivists to continue emphatically answering it in a positive way. You shouldn't scoff because they're asking the question, because thats just a product of their conditioning. Religious people, faith heads, Christians, whatever... are all conditioned to not know the answer to this question, and further conditioned to be incapable of fathoming an answer to the question apart from god. We're just getting a little more help from the scientific community from popular authors the way I see it. I think the efforts of Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris are extremely commendable on this question about morality without theism. All of these men are in some capacity dedicating themselves to a question that strongly impacts morality, "What is human nature?" What are we and who are we as a species? Neuroscientists Dennet and Harris, and Evolutionary Biologist Dawkins are all publicizing very critical denunciations of the ideological wrecking crew thats derailed the United States for everyone, i.e. Christianity. Thats the best thing about them. They're writing best selling books that are very critical of a philosophical position that is absolutely antithetical to Objectivism, and because of the consciousness raising taking place the stage opens up for all of the people they reach. They are opening the door for people who are borderline tired of their religion, to escape it. And opening a door for those comfortable with their religion, to doubt it. Once those people begin looking for alternatives to guide their lives the stage is open for an audience to become captivated by the philosophy of Objectivism. The word "Atheist" is beginning to take on a more curious appeal than ever before in history, and thats a good thing. Christians are ingrained to erect a framework around the word resonating disdain and when they aren't able to fit someone like an upstanding Objectivist into the mold they question... and then want to know more... Atheism then becomes the tip of the iceberg. Christians are rarely ever introduced to the word "Objectivism" let alone the philosophy, so even insofar as capturing the attention of someone for the sake of dialog I prefer to accept and promote the Atheist label. Any step toward Reason, and away from Faith is a positive step.

A lot of the people who criticize the CT's seem to me to have a very narrow point of view looking at the situation, and seem to be very prepared to discount their evidence based on their conclusions, instead of the other way around. I don't think anyone should be overly willing to discredit their side of the argument simply because it "seems" inconceivable. All of the people who affiliate themselves with the Objectivist ideology necessarily believe our current government is grossly overpowered. Most of you by merit of being interested in at least one philosophy are familiar with the ideology behind the current government, i.e. neo-conservatism. You are also aware that this kind of "demonstration" (9/11) would work very well in creating an enemy figure to unite a nation, providing the social influence and control prescribed by that ideology. The Loose Change movie does bring some interesting points to light, whether or not all of the unanswered questions can lead one to conclude foul play on the part of our own government (or those controlling it) should not curb our interest in asking them. There are still a lot of things about 9/11 that remain unanswered... and our governments willingness to give us a specific answer that is so unsatisfactory seems at the very least fishy. The plane that hit the pentagon could not have, "vaporized." Why were security camera tapes confiscated that filmed the event at the pentagon, while news camera's were glued to the WTC complex after the first hit? The plane that supposedly crashed in Shanksville couldn't have "vaporized." Why would WTC 7 "crimp" in the middle and completely collapse even though it was only damaged on one face? This is a partial pic of WTC 7's damaged side. This is a picture of the Banker's Trust building's damaged side. This is a proximity layout of distances between Banker's Trust and the South Tower, and WTC 7 and the North Tower. Keep in mind WTC 7 had a building between itself and the North Tower, WTC6. The Banker's Trust building was closer to the South Tower, than WTC7 was to the North Tower. So, what indeed is the difference between these buildings that caused the spectacular, unprecedented collapse of WTC 7, but left Banker's Trust standing tall? Why the crimp and eye witness accounts of explosions sounding like fully automatic "gunfire"? Why the huge temperature difference in the pools of molten metal and the max temperature at which jet fuel burns? I don't pretend to be certain either way, but I am fairly certain that the 9/11 Commission report should have addressed these issues. It didn't mention WTC7 or the Molten Metal, but it does want us to believe titanium alloy can vaporize because of intense heat caused by burning jet fuel. At the very least Dr. Steven Jones and the people at www.journalof911studies.com should be commended for conducting actual experiments and submitting their hypothesis for peer review to better understand these questions. A movie that I think provides the broadness of scope needed to take the events of 9/11 into consideration is offered by a film called "Zeitgeist, The Movie" (google it, it's free to watch). I'm not endorsing the film as being 100% accurate, but what inaccuracies exist are minuscule.