Black Wolf

Wow. 67 years as a physicist. That certainly says a lot about his credibility... damn. Hopefully this will convince people to get over their attachment to the AGW scam.

A dictatorship has four characteristics: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and censorship. Above all, this last. ~ Ayn Rand Really now. Well that's news to me. Because "right to life", if anything, is a conclusion, not a premise that would be reached long before she got to politics. Well, since you're proclaiming to know so much about Objectivism, and are absolutely sure that we're incorrectly applying it's principles, I trust I don't have to point out that "democracy" is not a valid form of government. Putting someone in handcuffs against their will is aggression. Therefore, Policemen are aggressors because they put handcuffs on robbers. The robbers didn't do anything to the policeman, therefore, the policeman initiated aggression. If you have a history of violating rights, you can't claim that someone "initiated aggression" against you when their force is being used to stop yours. You don't actually have to be affected by the violators. Well, you have the right to protect your home for as long as you - or anyone in your house - did not initiate force against people. If you did, anyone - regardless of whether or not the people confronting you were personally affected by you - gets to do what is necessary. You can argue whether or not further actions are wise, but it's not immoral in the sense that you're violating another's rights.

The UN investigates Israel during the flotilla raid http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/09/2010922195831956543.html

I think the lady seemed rather whiny. She voted for a man who she thought was going to magically fix the economy, when that's not even the proper function of a president in the first place. She voted for a man for all of the wrong reasons, and she's disappointed for all of the wrong reasons. I'll thank her for serving, and for helping those who do. That's about it. I can't say I agree that the Wall-Street remarks were obnoxious, however.

Or military service eligibility fees - In order to be eligible for payment, should you ever serve, you have to pay a fee as soon as you become an adult. If you don't pay, and you want to join the military, you don't get a paid (and on top of that, you'll still have to pay the MSEFs).

Citizenship fees are where you pay for the right to vote, from what I've read of people. The government still must enforce contracts and ban force

No, I definitely agree. I think it's very silly that so many consrevatives are trying to bring up that zoning laws prohibits this. I'm against zoning laws, but they're wrong: zoning laws are there primarily to protect the value of your house. Not to make sure you don't get offended.

This is all very interesting.. has there been any studies on such techniques?

How does a branch of Islam that was split about 1000 years ago support a terrorist organization that was formed 2 decades ago?

Inaccurate. Not every branch of Islam preaches violence, and neither does every branch of Christianity promote the opposite.

Uh... wasn't Timothy McVeigh an Agnostic? I'd like to see some examples of churches near bombed abortion clinics, I'm curious about this.

I've got an idea: Military Compensation Eligibility Fees. If you want to join the military, you have to pay a certain fee.. say $5000/year.. if you want to be eligible for payment. If you refuse to pay that, then should you ever join the military, you would basically have to volunteer without pay.

Well, there has been a stay on the ruling. California is not permitted to issue marriage lisences to same sex couples. This I find to be very disturbing. Just because someone wants to take this to the Supreme Court, California has to issue a stay on it. I find this to be a very rotten double standard.

What is that, the Simpsons?

Wow. Just browsing around, Objectivist Living has quite possibly the most uninformed bunch of people I've seen, just reading the Gay Marriage ban thread. That had to be said. Carry on.

It never occured to me that the several people I'm surrounded by who insist that Israel "exists by UN decision" were simply begging the question among like-minded individuals. I asked this because I wasn't sure if there was a dilemma of acknowledging that the UN is evil, and supporting Israel. I didn't voice my concerns quite clearly, sorry. I'm not against Israel, though, which is why I asked the question. I support Israel, I am against the United Nations.. but I was wondering if there was an inherent contradiction between the two

Oh nice - the argument from intimidation. When you had questions about gay adoption and gays in the military, as I recall, I didn't accuse you of anti-gay rhetoric, or deliberately insult you. So I ask you not to do the same thing of me. I'd like to hear where exactly I went wrong.

Should we continue to support Israel, a country that only exists because of UN decision?

I'm sorry, is there a coherent thought that the OP has? Can he sum it up in six sentences? I'm not sure I get what he's saying at all.

If you're referring to the United States of America, this statement is an inherent contradiction. What we should be praising is not "Democracy". The judge ruling against the votes of many is exactly what our founding fathers intended - they wanted a society in which elected representatives vote on laws, because having citizens vote on laws would be a stupid idea.

Respond by saying "Spoken like a true <race> <gender> <class>" Put her in a deadlock. Make her elaborate.