Craig24

I discovered this in the news this morning from Rueters: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleas...2009+BW20091104 The son of Ron Paul is out in front early in the Republican primary and leading all Republican and Democratic candidates in recent polling. Can this be considered a postitive development?

Do not be frustrated. It is not a wasted effort at all. Remember that this forum is read by people seeking answers (like me many moons ago). A friend of mine put it this way: The purpose of a public debate is the presentation of an opposing view using evidence to a unbiased third party. It is NOT to persuade your opponent of anything.

It has been reported that the parents approved in advance the lyrics of a song sung by school children praising President Obama. This would appear to make the situation considerably worse for these kids than I previously thought but I am dealing with certain folks who see no problem with this. They think, as long as parental premission was given, that this kind of indoctrination is perfectly permissable. Am I wrong to disagree?

In VOS, Ayn Rand makes the following remark about the word "selfish": Now consider here remarks in P:WNI concerning the phrase "open mind": I wonder why she did not treat these two the same way.

Now that was brilliant! I will have to remember this one.

I saw this blog and wanted to get some perspective on it from the good folks on this board: http://www.flickr.com/photos/granitepics/3...in/photostream/ The writer's purpose was to demonstrate the alleged benefits of statism (he didn't use that term of course) that we all so thoroughly enjoy in order to soften the criticism against universal health care. It's scary to think of how much we "depend" on the state for our survival.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/200...14/british_nhs/ Have you seen this article? and..

"Owner of a Lonely Heart" - YES "It's my Life" - BON JOVI

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf This is a pdf of the bill, I think. It's dated July 14. I don't believe it was amended since then but I'm not sure.

Another question that probably should be raised: Can Michael Vick reform himself? Can he change? Can he cease being psychologically depraved? If he can, what does this mean to those of us who would choose to shun him for his moral crime? Does his change of perception, character and behavior demand a similar change of perception and behavior from us towards him?

It seems to me that many people choose to avoid alliances with people they disagree with on the fundamental issue of God/religion out of some concern that the religious believer will seek to violate the rights of the atheist. Perhaps a pledge of sorts is in order for the religious believer who wishes to make common cause with objectivists. Galt's pledge reads as follows: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine. Can we come up with something along those lines that a relgious believer should pledge before he will be accepted as a legitimate ally of objectivists?

Very interesting but totally unconvincing. Now imagine yourself the victim of theft or fraud. You discover that someone has deceived you and by doing so, gained a material value that was yours. Do you congratulate the perpetrator for his success and let him keep what was yours or do you call the police in order to recover your losses and bring him to justice?

I'm am a bit surprised by your ad-hominem attacks on Mr. Firehammer on a site supposedly dedicated to a philosophy that should teach you and others to dispense with logical fallacies.

Wow. Facinating. Under the political system favored by Rand, murder is illegal and the perp. faces a life sentence or the death penalty. On what planet is it in anyone's self interest to commit murder?

This is the wrong question. The question should be "Who decides what programming is permitted on television?" We all know the answer.

Something else occurs to me: Rush DOES pay rent for the use of the airwaves so to speak. Do you know what that rent is called!!?? FEDERAL INCOME TAX!!!

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseC...3614&EDATE= Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh From Ralph Nader WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is an open letter to Rush Limbaugh from Ralph Nader: Rush Limbaugh The Rush Limbaugh Show 2 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10121 Dear Mr. Limbaugh, The Associated Press reports your new contract with Premiere Radio Networks will enrich you with at least $38 million a year over the next eight years. You are making this money on the public property of the American people for which you pay no rent. You, Rush Limbaugh, are on welfare. As you know, the public airwaves belong to the American people. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to be our trustee in managing this property. The people are the landlords and the radio and TV stations and affiliated companies are the tenants. The problem is that since the Radio Act of 1927 these corporate tenants have been massively more powerful in Washington, DC than the tens of millions of listeners and viewers. The result has been no payment of rent by the stations for the value of their license to broadcast. You and your company are using the public's valuable property for free. This freeloading on the backs of the American people is called corporate welfare. It is way past due for the super-rich capitalist -- Rush Limbaugh from Cape Girardeau, Missouri -- to get himself off big time welfare. It is way past due for Rush Limbaugh as the Kingboy of corporatist radio to set a capitalist example for his peers and pay rent to the American people for the very lucrative use of their property. You need not wait for the broadcast industry-indentured FCC and Congress to do the right thing. You can lead by paying a voluntary rent -- determined by a reputable appraisal organization -- for the time you use on the hundreds of stations that carry your words each weekday. Payment of rent for the use of public airwaves owned by the American people is the conservative position. Real conservatives oppose corporate welfare. Real corporatists feed voraciously from hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare gushing out of Washington, DC yearly. Whose side are you on? Freeloading? Or paying rent for the public property you have been using free for many years? I look forward to your response. Sincerely yours, Ralph Nader PO Box 19312 Washington, DC 20036 SOURCE Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate emphasis mine of course. If Ralph Nader wants to lecture someone, why not Congress and the FCC? The proper action would be to sell off the airwaves to private enterprise and let them decide what to broadcast at whatever price the consumer is willing to pay. That would REALLY set a capitalist example for everyone.

http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/2009.../901260356/1097 According to this article, congress has passed a new product safety law that may do great harm to many businesses. On Feb. 10, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act will take effect, imposing strict safety measures on products made for children and requiring that toys and all other products made for children under the age of 12 be tested for safety, specifically lead content, and labeled with their material contents. While it sounds good in theory, the legislation means ALL products. Under the new law, children's products with more than 600 ppm (parts per million) total lead cannot be sold in the United States on or after Feb. 10, even if they were manufactured before that date. This is on the heals of that new law requiring phone cameras to click. It just doesn't stop.

Greetings It is being reported that 650 scientists are challenging a report by the UN that claims global warming is man made. http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?3...f5-eb517991319f Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

Why must any right be qualified with the adjective "civil".., Or "gay" for that matter? A right is something that exists and the government is supposed to RECOGNIZE and PROTECT it. A right is not something granted to you only if you meet some arbitrary standard. Why must anyone get married in order to have ANY actually existing right recognized? What about us single folk?? Discrimination indeed!

rickthepick, "Conservative" hosts like Rush and Beck would only deserve to lose their jobs if the product they offer is no longer desired by a sufficient number of listeners in the market. The content of their speech and the rationality or irrationality of their views are not relevant to the issue being discussed.