stuzal atla creala iuday

Check out this site... www.planyc.org I was assigned to write a paper supporting this horrific, obviously statist plan and, after reading articles in it, primarily http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=...74902&rfi=6 and http://www.planyc.org/project-92-Lower-East-Side-Rezoning , I began to actually cry, not much, but still. It was so blatant, so bluntly a plan to expand on eminent domain, to regulate the the already over-regulated economy of the great city, and to punish the good for being good that it simply horrified me. The worst part to have to read, for me, was the long list of height restrictions; symbolically that was crushing. When the towers of our souls are shortened by the blades of swords, when our saviors, because they're strong, are damned for their rewards, when the mob can justify itself by words that aren't it's own and it complains that things are just too hard; it must be saved from it all. I refuse to write this paper in support of this disgusting piece of legislation! I'd rather fail the class than support this. I was hoping to have some further discussion on this plan.

Stand-by Rascal Flatts: You feel like a candle, in a hurricane, just like a picture, with a broken frame, alone and helpless, like you've lost your fight but you'll be alright, you'll be alright 'Cause when push comes to shove, you find what you're made of you might think that you'll break that it's all you can take on your knees, you look up decide you had enough, you get mad, you get strong, wipe your hands, shake it off then you stand! Life's like a novel, with the end ripped out, the edge of a canyon, with only one way down, take what you're given, before it's gone; start holding on, keep holding on 'Cause when push comes to shove, you find what you're made of you might think that you'll break that it's all you can take on your knees, you look up decide you had enough, you get mad, you get strong, wipe your hands, shake it off then you stand! Every time you get up and get back in the race, one more small piece of you starts to fall into place 'Cause when push comes to shove, you find what you're made of you might think that you'll break that it's all you can take on your knees, you look up decide you had enough, you get mad, you get strong, wipe your hands, shake it off then you stand!

Thank you. I know the baseline is very repetitive. Frankly, it was just supposed to be a filler and the piano/guitar improve that goes on throughout the entire song can barely be heard. The problem was that the camera was standing on top of the bass-player's amp. I understand what you mean. There is a chorus. The part "I'm selfish enough to settle for nothing less than you..." repeats twice, but I understand what you mean by the repetitiveness.

Here's the lyrics: Don't tell me that I care too much about myself, don't complain that I can't love you more than anyone else (including me). Don't tell me that love is something you just feel; that you can't understand it, it's just so surreal. There's a reason for for why I disagree with these sayings you say, when you don't even know what they really mean anyway. I'm selfish enough to settle for nothing less than you, you're the best for me, and I'm rational enough to know it's true to know it's true, there's a reason for why your love makes me sing if I wasn't so selfish, it wouldn't mean anything I'm selfish enough, to settle for nothing less.

It's not my best performance, but what do you guys think of the song?

I drink Red Bull before every single wrestling match, and I never have had any substance other than that. I have never drank alchohol, smoked anything, injected, snorted or anything; I just like having energy before I go on the mat. The government can't outlaw a substance simply because it could lead to people make bad decisions. According to what you are saying, we should outlaw knives because, even though they have practical applications, they can be a "gateway tool" towards assault and murder. I am certainly not saying that you advocate this, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument; that people aren't smart enough to avoid making stupid decisions when tempted by objects and, therefore, must be regulated by an all knowing, all powerful government. That producer spent his time, his effort, and the risk of maybe his livelihood to produce that powder and people are willing to pay for it; it is simply evil to force him to give it up because some people might get the "wrong idea". That is the same mentality that almost took Spongebob Squarepants off the air because some stupid kid drowned himself looking for a "pineapple under the sea" under the supervision of his/her irresponsible parent.

I didn't remember the names involved because they are not important. The important part is that any one would condone and perpetrate such an immense violation of human rights. They are not claiming its a drug, they are attacking it becuase it looks like a drug and it's, therefore, a "bad influence" that would have people clamoring for cocaine.

I like this one better. The melody still seems to be too broken though.

Excellent lyrics yourself, but I think that the melodies are too overly distorted in the music, as if there is none. It seems like the song is just trying to get the message out, like a lecture. Even Rand stated that "it must also be enjoyable just to experience" which, in my opinion, it is not. If you could get lyrics like that into a better melody, I would buy the album in an instant.

Recently a company (the names of both the company and the product excape me) came out with a new energy drink that can be carried around in little tubes in a powdered form and, therefore, is much more convenience and accessible than conventional canned energy drinks. The government is now cracking down on this company because the powder has an extremely remarkable resemblence to cocaine powder. I quote from one of the proponents of shutting this product down, "...you [the manufacturer] must realize that this cannot be done. There is no way that you didn't realize what this looks like... it's a moral obsenity and it sets a bad example for our children... you shouldn't be allowed to do this...[here's the part that really gets me angry] you don't need this stuff. Drop it now. You seem like a creative guy. why don't you find something else! [italics mine]. How could people be so morally crippled as to advocate this? The man is trying to support himself and just because of an apparent similarity to some drug he must be stripped of his discovery? I've drank many drinks with powders that looked that (although I've never taken his drink) but because his company has made an explosion in sales, he gets his creation stolen from him? The government hasn't taken his idea from him yet, but just the fact that this man has to deal with this is horrifying. Any comments?

I thought this forum page was dead... obviously, I'm wrong.

I think the greatest anthem of self-respect out there right now is "Love Song" by Sara Bareilis. Not only is it amazing lyrically, it is also so profoundly different from most modern music melodically as well. If objectivism is to formulate a standard for music, it should start there. Also, I have some song lyrics that I think would also fit the standard. It was obviously written in reaction to outcries of multiculturalist-pacifism toward to the terrorists of the Middle East. Out in the desert with brute jelousy they stare at what we've done with our right to be free. Down with those structures should've crashed our divides but still hatred between us and towards us resides. I don't care what they say we should do when they slaughtered our brethren and they'll do it again and how can one say it's only our problem to rid when the very same people put a bomb in madrid. So remember, as we quarrell among ourselves they are stacking crude weapons upon storage shelves so please heed my warning, before this great nation falls please heed my warning, if you care about it at all. We're repeating roman history and most don't realize we might kill the last free-loving land before our own eyes. They dismantle us with caution so we'll let them remain in the hopes that we won't sustain. So remember, as we quarrell among ourselves they are stacking crude weapons upon storage shelves so please heed my warning, before this great nation falls please heed my warning, if you care about it at all. They don't believe in our system they believe we should die. Well I don't want to, again, see the great eagle cry. The minds of our fellow men believe it's not fair that we should be able to solve this without even a care. Well, that's just our problem our own just don't care they just think what they're told by the ones on the air. So remember, as we quarrell among ourselves they are stacking crude weapons upon storage shelves so please heed my warning, before this great nation falls please heed my warning, if you care about it at all.

Superman supposedly stands for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way", but every action he does contradicts that. However, Batman stands for those things much more explicitly, but he is a vigilante who takes self-defense into his own hands (anyone who's read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" should know the problems associated with this). Between the two of them, Batman is definitely the better, but I would also submit a greater superhero embodiment of the Objectivist Ideal; Captain America. Even better than Captain America (because he was the product of someone else's genious). Iron Man would be the best example I could think of. He is extremely intelligent, he is tough, he works for his own sake (Stark Enterprises), and he protects the rights of men.

The "carness" is the sum of the characteristics that classify it as a car; that's it.

What I meant by universal characteristics are the intrinsic characteristics that make the particular pertain to the universal, the "carness" in the car.

Essences are ontological/metaphysical in the sense that the characteristics that comprise an object's identity do, in fact, exist, however, they are epistemological in formation and are, thus, objective. I liken the idea with a Honda and a Buick crashing into eachother and asking "where's the crash?" It is not solely in the Honda, nor in the Buick; it exists in the interaction, but that does not change the fact that both cars exist and does not change the fact that they can only interact according to their individual natures, which comprise of both unique and universal characteristics.

There are only fifty two scientists on that pannel, the rest are all politicians (which may give you a good hint at their real intentions when writing that thing). Ten of those scientists refused to sign that document and another twenty are currently demanding that their names be removed (not the media would ever say any of this). We contribute a combined total effect of .4% of earth's climate change. In order to make that lessen by even .1 of a percent, we'd have to submit ourselves to economic oblivion and settle for near stone-age lifestyles. Global warming is just an altruist conspiracy to trick mankind into following its ideals.

I don't get how a genius like Einstein could've had such bad metaphysics and philosophical views when his physics, for the most part, completely affirm objectivist thought.

It should have rights because the basis of man's rights is A=A. What is man? It is a being possessing a rational conciousness and the ability to focus its mind. If the machine can do this, it should have rights, regardless of any difficulties with locomotion. One of the previous posters on this topic said that if it cannot pursue values because it it can't move, then it is not human; how is this different from a person with muscular attrophy or congenital amputation of his/her limbs? If it has the mental processes, it is human; locomotion does not grant anything the title of "human".

According to the hypothetical, the human mental processes are fully reproduced, this thing has Free Will and conciousness, it has sensory apperati and all the things that make a human a human except the fact that it is mechanical; does this thing warrant the title "Human"?

I was given a hypothetical situation by one of my friends. One of the world's leading computer scientists (I don't know his name) said that, in order to replicate the cognitive abilities of the human mind, he would have to erect a structure forty miles by fourty miles by fourty miles of entirely interconnected Cray Super Computers. The hypothetical is, if someone actually built this thing, would it have rights? Should it be considered human?

You've got a good point; neither he, the teacher, nor I know the entire context of the statement and, therefore, we are all really arguing from ignorance.

I'd rather not get any prize Al Gore has received! I second that motion. Especially because Global warming is a hoax; altruist lies designed to get men to unknowingly act as their own destroyers.