Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Space Patroller

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Space Patroller

  1. This is only a test...

    Haven't seen you lately.

  2. almost true, if you can't stand the kitchen sink, get out of the heat BUT, the rule was that the family was kept out of it, obscene and borderline obscene were off limits and you don't see the leftists treated the same way. Unitl the advent of Rush Limbaugh, it was pretty much 100% one way. Now try to make jokes about the Kennedys' offspring. Chelsea Clinton was off limits. imagine if someone did a joke about Sasha Obama and Henry Gates. Ironically, when it was 100% one way. Palin would have gotten sympathy and probably enough to make a difference, so talk radio has evend the score
  3. JACKPOT!! http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/08jun.html Also http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/08feb.html And don't forget the Michelle Malkin vid of Gingrich and Pelosi smooching it up on the Green couch
  4. It's music to my ears. I've been hoping for this for 20 years. The God Squad and Greenie-Weenies on the same side. We should encourage it. Both are mystics, they belong together. The only reason the conservatives became pro-science/technology/growth, at least in word was because of the left going green in the 1970's and compared to the left, they are pro-reason, but only compared to the left. Some of us know who the real good guys are with regard to that divide. Some of us knew that 40 years ago. Others of us still don't know. Back around 2000 Rush read a column about the Democrats "taking back God" Did you think Christians really like capitalism? http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/endof.html This ought not be news. Where has mainstream Christianity been on the political spectrum for the last 45 years? Including the Catholic Church? Rand: "ONe could onl wish that they had given St. Thomas a better funeral". For those who believe the "God sqaud" is on the right. You did not read an article; c1978 in ERGO about President Carter as an elder in his church giving a sermon in praise of death. It was an article I clipped out from the Prividence Journal and sent to ERGO. Calling sN....Calling sN....
  5. Zip had broght in new data that severely questioned the main premises from which I was dealing; that WACO was the full and complete cause of McVley's action which was attributed to the findings of the court. It appears to have been a proximate cause, more like an excuse. While the principles still held, he was not acting under those principles, just using them as an excuse to do what he was looking for the first excuse to do.
  6. The problem with that is that it ain't so. If a chosen course is not taken, the ship does not stop, momentum pushies it in the direction it was travelling under power. While it appears to be a zero-sum situtation, it is not a static situation. the same dynamic forces are still at play, it's just that they are perfectly balanced. However these aren't unguided since the are human forces and the powers behind them would be looking for ways to break the impasse. If stasis is your goal, that's the best possible scenario. But stasis is not your goal. You would be tryimg to undo the statism that has been alread put into the system so you would be part of the dynamics. Even if you shut off dynamic input all sides would be working with the existing dynamics to maximuze the effectiveness of both the internals of the system and to break the impasse from the inside to open the system up to outside influence Din't forger, the bad guys are a complex, not just the pols so they would be working outside the system within the culture so the stasis you desire would not even be tenable and maybe not even possible. You would have to attack the collectivist-alruist parts of the culture just to maintain stasis
  7. This is one of those nasty deals where neither side is right: The government, in violation of the protocols or Roe v Wade is using tax money to fund abortions. Taxation is theift and some persons believe abortion is morally wrong so there is an infringement of porpert and a violation of freedom of conscience. So, at the root, the government is culpable here, is the aggressor and is breaking new ground in the march toward totalitarianism. So it bears half of the blame On the other sice you have the fanatics. As is pointed out by "I wonder if they realized that they sound like muslim terrorosts?". Probably not. But that should be no surprise. All fanatics are terrorists. Now What would you do if your beliefs were violated in a gross and fundemtal way? Through the 60's and 70's the right used to do glowing images of the US population resisting the Soviet occupation in verious fictional scenarios and terrororism against the Soviiet-installed puppets and beuareaucrats was part of the paln. I hear folks here talk about stocking up on guns and things so the totalitarian eventuality is being considered. As to can't something be done in the courts. Alsa. The Alien and Sedition Acts were struck down and nothing has come to replace them and ever since the Chicago 7 trials it's been a free for all But this is what happens when reason is abandoned as the go-to guy for figuring things out. As a fottnote to this. I heard on "ReBoortz" on the week of 8 July,a dixcussion between Boortz and a rep from Charter Arms, his firearms dealer, and the subject of Timothy McVey's shit came up and the guy from Charter said "|The government had some crazy stuff in mind and McVey put a stop to that. [things like] training Navy Seals to search houses. but that all ended with that [McVey's action]". This was Boortz and a firearms dealer, not me so take it up with them
  8. Ohter names to look up are Gerard K O'Neill and General Daniel Graham both under the term high frontier
  9. Reason is the tool of knowledge. That is either true or false. I do not recall Rand putting an "except" clause into her statements of the validity of Reason being the Sole guide to knowledge. That Reason is the sole guide to knowledge is an essential part of Objectivism. If Reason is not to be the sole arbiter in the abortion matter then what is: Faith? Feelings? Force? Revelations from teh Spirit of a 19 millenia dead high priest of Atlantis, or those of the pre-esixtent trans-ectomorph of a 19 millenia not-yet-born beaureaucrat of the now-famous Hybrethian Galactickle Empire? It's either A is A or no way Jose. In confronting the Hedonists, Aristotle asked, to prove the superiority of mind over pleasure as the arbiter of the good, "If you had no consciousness then would you know if you are experiencing pleasure?". The Hedonists had to say "No" to be honest. So consciouness is established as the tool of knowledge. But what is the human Consciousness? Rand: "the only choice man hasi is to think or not to think" So this consciousness is volitional. How does it work properly if not to take the materials provided by the senses or transduction instruments and place them in a systematic, hierarchical non-contradictory frame of reference? Is this not what Reason does Now you have to use some sort of knowetic mechanism to ascetain if a thing is a life or a potetial life. You have only 4 choices Reason, Faith, Feelings (whims) or Force. Now can you "render unto reason that which is reason's and unto faith, feelings (whim) or force, that which is faith's, feeling's or force's" in the area of knowledge AT ALL? Abortion requires that you make a distinction of life or not life, that is to discern the IDENTITY of something. Since Reason is the only proper arbiter of knowledge then I submit again If given the choice of abortion supported by reaosn or not at all, the Objectivist, qua rational person, must say "not at all". To willfully, knowingly and freely deny the absolutism of Reason by so much as a picometer for a picosecond is to not be an Objectivist AT ALL. In fact let me make it a principle "in ANY area requiring judgement, if the choice is betweem x supported by reason or not at all, the only proper choice is 'not at all'". How would you know an actual life but for Reason. It was the rational philosophy of Aristotle that showed the difference between an actual and a potential and that the actual took precedence. So even your question presupposes the use of reason to determin living from potential life or part life so Reason is already in the driver's seat.
  10. Not trying to convert; just an intellectual ammunition drop-off. True, but it could also come from necessity as the case with the Plymouth Colony, but your point is taken and supported. There has to be something in it for somebody (read individuals). It's called "eyes on the prize"
  11. It seems that there's a lesson here about CommieCare Do you want the same folks who erased the moon tapes running health care?
  12. YOU'RE RIGHT! It was a Republican Congress that voted to legislate what kind of light bulbs we can have in our homes in 2008...er...right? Um sorry about that. and wait until you see wht Cap and Trade will do for you and I don't see the Right giving us the bum's rush to pass CommieCare. It seems that they're putting up a squawk, Where are the "pro-choice"er's on CommieCare? No, since the late 1980's the pro-choice movement has tried to expand abortion to late-term, available to minors without parental consent and government-financed (which at the time of Roe v Wade was conceded to be a violation of separation of church and state since it would use tax money to support an activity that violated the moral precepts of a major sector of the population); all of which violate either the terms or spirit of Roe v Wade of which I was in '73 and am now, an absolute supporter on principle, just so you know where I stand. The "methodology" I use on the pro-choicers is to quote their spokesperson and see how that squares with Objectivism ("a man with principles, even the wrong ones, is better than a man with none"). Nobody put a gun to their head and made them say that. Well du-uh! It's not that they don't know how to make their case, it's that they don't WANT to. For the third time "We don't want to get involved in philosophy" At that point it's over. Any attempt by Objectivists to defend, mitigate or ameliorate that is just self-embarrasing. Just say "Aw, they don't mean it" and take your medicine as the wall falls on you. When they speak for themselves it doesn't matter two turds in a teacup what the God squad is or does, it's about them and only them. Moral relativism is not an option. Did not Ayn Rand say "Take them at their word"? Well, I always do. How can anyone be on "the correct side of the issue" , of any issue, when you assiduously strive to evade "Exixtence exists" i.e. the whole damn universe? They're clueless on Klendathu; and as buggy. We are on the correct side of the issue. To be there one must first embrace two things: Existence and Reason which are elements of philosophy It's not like the "God squad" is the only God squad. either, Ever hear of the "Green church"? And do you have to geuss where the "pro-choice" folks are with respect to that? and go to the next abortion "rights" meeting and announce that you support capitalism. I see no logic to feeding the mouth that will bite you right off the bat. Hell, Rush Limbaugh is starting to question the value of sacrifice. Do you hear the left, of which the pro-choice movement is part. doing that? Regarding the "God squad" and the left (Existentialsm/Nihilism generated) there is a quote by Rand on another thread: "Kierkegaard is superior to Existentialism because he was religiou [philosophically oriented?]". I can say no more. I've said all I can say
  13. Plus they had to give the money hand over fist to the eco's as in "Energy Star" and "Tax credits for 'going green'" and create really useful things like the EPA and two DoE's and fund the proto-versions of CommieCare and these were mostly Republican administrations. (1969-77). Though to be fair. CONgress was overwhilmingly Democrat but the GOP wans't that commited to capitalism. the early 1970's saw the steepest rise in Federal spending in the second half of the twentieth century (ERGO published the graph in the late middle '70's). You may wish to read two Rand essay's "Apollo 11" and "Epitaph for a Culture" She was on the guest list for the Apollo 11 launch.
  14. Romney is probably still your best choice. In re Romney-care. he probably made the best of a bad bargain with MA being , According to David Brudnoy, "a wholly-onwed subsidiary of the Democratic Party". your choices there were bad and worse. so that's a dead issue and far from the only issue. The fact that he won the governorship as at worse, a moderate Republican speaks volumes, and he is more conservative than you've been led to believe (before you open your mouth, look at my profile) . He is telegenic read 1960 debates, he has the experience of taking companies that are two notches from the crapper and putting life back into them (for whcih McCain attacked him from the left) and he is a "mature" candidate, i.e. benn in it before. All forecasts, even based on what has happened say the economy will suck badly in 2012 unless you believe in fairy dust. the media will certainly try to manipulate the perception of the economy. Just the deficit to date is $T2 that we know of. That's gotta have an effect, and a bad one. Don't forget, Carter inherited a better economy than he left. and the 1976 economy was pretty sad. Look up "misery index". Palin is starting to fade and the others named would be newbies as will Bobby Gindal. As for Huckabee...well..."Thank you, Huck: Barack". What Romeny has to do is get media savvy and be more assertive A good predictor will be the election of 2010 just as the election of 1978 was the predictor of 1980 As a candidate (meaning the whole package) I give Romeny a B with the range being C- (Huckbee) to B. Most of the named candidates have the goods but there would have to be a breakout for one of them to do it. Romney, Palin and Huckabee have the name recognition which, in business terms means "location". For those thinking of voting for Spongepants Squarebob: We are going to get somebody, so don't think you're being clever. This is a relay marathon, not a sprint. I did pass in '92 and '08 (the outcome was already decided anyway) I'll probably vote for any of them with the exception of Huckserbee
  15. Your statement that if you had a brain and were decent you would be pro-choice; unless you did not get the context in which I was speaking. i.e. the group that is called "Pro-Choice". As far as the vote goes, true but we could not ever be "pro-choice". That particular form of dementia crept up int the late 1980's. If it came to the choice of the "God squad" or this bunch of Nihilists. well Ayn Rand said "When an animal is attacked from beyond it's range of awareness it dies" Nihilists are all about shrinking the range of human awareness. In throwing philosophy under the bus they throw away The Primacy of Existence, Reason, Egoism and Individual Rights and you know what they think of capitalism. If you think they are preferable to the "God squad" think Community Reinvestmant Act, Obamacare, the whole Political Correctness thing and Barney Frank et al. As fascists, they make the "God squad" look like Objectivists. Of them, David Brudnoy said in c2002, with the issue of late-term abortions "All they care about is getting their fourth trimester abortion..." This is in no way, shape or form the folks who won Roe v Wade: But they may be the ones to lose it. For me, the issue of abortion is far less important than will we be able to afford the damn thing; or even a loaf of bread, if the economy goes belly up. Look at history over the last 45 years. which side has, in fact, violated individual rights to a greater degree, the "God squald" or the left, of which this group is an integral part? To show the effect they've had. Support for keeping abortion legal used to be from 60% to 2 to 1. Over the last dacade and a half it has become almost a dead heat.
  16. I voted "yes" on 1 and "no" on 2 The reasons for the disparity are these4 1. Tehy have already accepted the current programs. So that would be acting "ex post facto". Besides, you can always do it later. 2. Medicaid is more a State than Federal matter 3. Why shoot all the bullets in the gun in one burst? When people tell me we should bomb Macca to nothing, I say "Then what? I'd bmb half of Mecca to bits and then ask 'Want me to finish the job?'".
  17. Then you would be anti philosophy I'm an atheist, thank God. The spokesperson said "We don't want to get involved with philosophy". Why would I want to roll with that posse unless I said to myself "Aw, they don't mean it"?
  18. Now that is the mother of all typo's: Two letters transposed two positions, not one as in "teh" or "ot" but TWO, and the substition of the e by an a. It's :began". That's why I hate these4 compact keyboards
  19. Everyone agrees on that in the abortion context. This issue that the pro-lifers, mistakenly or wrongly, raise is that their is another person's body and life being destroyed. Pro-Choice? Principles? Wlhat did I write earlier: and support with evidence? Principled pro choiceer is oxymoronic Now the real danger here is with the pro-lifers making a claim of fact and the pro choice being speicifically and pointedly anti-philosophy. In the minds of decent persons, who wins? If you're a decent person with a brain, which side would you support? When you are opposed to philosophy, principles, rights even facts are all floating abstaractions. Don't forget, Rand said "If I had to chose between capitalism not supported by reason or not at all, then 'not at al'". The same must apply to abortion or any issue.
  20. We already have "food nazi"s and "food police", neither of which are my creation. When you combine nazi and police, you sure's hell don't get Galt's Gulch, right? As far as the expected comments. To quote Captain Kirk "What the Klingon says is unimportant" and that's being kind. Well, all this stuff starts as not really news. "Gas guzzler" was a media creation of the mid 1970's "African-Amereican" was created by Jesse Jackson in 1988. "Senior Citizen" was a media buzzword form 35 years back. Threy now used in government circles. 15 years ago who'd'a though PETA would be considered more than a bunch of cranks? Besides which the magic word was used. Just say "addictive" and the statists and malcontents swarm like bees. They include government types looking to expand their powers. That PETA and veggans havem't been either locked away or euthanized speaks volumes. These aren't just ordinary nutbags, they have an agenda, are organized and have the ears of the university-media-totalitarian complex. This guy was making medical claims and was affiliated with some diabetes clinic of some kind from what I could glean
  21. If what I heard early this morning is any predictor, that's what I figure. Joran Rich WBZ 1030 AM Boston, overnight show had a guest who was apparently involvoed in some kind of diabetes diet thing, since this person identified the "best" diet at "vegan" I'm temtped to think it's a scam like all the rest. and Rich asked about "addictive foods" and the guy mentioned chocolate, dairy and meat, afte which he reccomended the "vegan diet" as a near cure-all (which tripped my B.S alarm) and continued the "addictive" theme. That tripped my foodstapo alarm. You don't have to be Dagny Taggert to know the train schedule Aw; they don't mean it. It can't happen here I mean can; it? Is it time for someone to write 2090 or Hershey Shrugged?
  22. There is no "prosess" of God. For there to be such, you would noeed a process to exist that is outside of nature that regulates or controls nature, this is "supernaturalism" Otherwise nature and the universe are self-contained and self-sufficient and God serves no purpose other than to calm the ignorant or superstitious. Beyond that, you cannot "prove" that God exists. You cannot prove that anything exists. You demonstrate it by physical means by either direct sensory contact or by transduction instrument. You would need a deiscope. By that proecess, there will never be a philosophical proof of the existence of anything. Therefore not proof by discursive logic. That is not the job of philosophy. However, "God" does "work" in a psychological sense in that I can use it to model some processes. This is because of the fact that as our knowledge of the universe has grown, the abstract "god" has been modified to reflect that and in many ways "Good" spoofs the universe or nature. Look at how the Big Bang was validated. I can see an argument for A=A in that this is the Law of Identity which must equal or subsume all identities (One Ring to Rule them all, One Ring to bind them). It could also be argued that this is supported by the Law of Non-contradiction since for A not to = A in the same respect at the same time is a contradiction and A must be ither itself and allof itself or there is no identity, only a similarity to a greater or lesser degeree
  23. Cue "Jaws Them.mp3" What would you say if I told you that Contess is considering laws against "finning"? Finning is the practice of hunting sharks for their fins and leaving them for dead. The fin meat is used in soups Now would you believe me if I told you that part of the contingent testifying in favor of banning this practice were shark attack victims: Some with missing limbs? Wouldn't believe me, huh? Way too ATLAS SHRUGGED. Right? and you'd think I was trying to go one up on Ayn Rand. Right? I don't blame you at all. I wouldn't believe me either and Jake Ellison would be totally justified in jumping up and down on me with hobnail boots. Well how about if it was on ABC radio news at 7pm this evening? Now I can understand Congress wanting to protect sharks; species loyalty, but the bitees? This is like Little Red Riding Hood testifying in favor of protecting Big Bad Wolves in the name of her Grandma; "Congress, what big teeth you have". "All the better to chew you to pieces my dear"
  24. Even Mike Savage calls the US-style liberals "illiberal" and In the mid '80's I met seversl libertarians who called themselves "classical liberals". to set themselves apart from anarchists, liberals and conservatives.
  • Create New...