Colonel Rebel

That's a bad thing, if this country cannot get anything done. Ultimately, it will be four years of terrorists continuing to pursue thier third jihad in the middle east while we sit idly by the wayside. This cannot happen, and we cannot allow the terrorists to achieve thier goals (though they are pretty close to taking over Saudi Arabia....no comment on Iran, of course).

Look, as a political scientist and policy researcher, I have to weigh in on this one. North Korea may be the only country we are 'ignoring'. Even then we have china, japan, sk, and taiwan who have them in thier scopes. Though NK 'may' be able to hit us with a nuke (which may or may not be operational), he's closer targets that can do just as much damage as a direct hit on our shores: Japan, a hit to tokyo would devestate world markets. Same with Beijing and Hong Kong. And if he really did have nukes, it is most likely he'd attempt to 'unify' the korean peninsula first. Re: Iran. Iran is our number one priority, with Saudi Arabia being second, now that Iraq is ours. Think of Iraq as a stepping stone to Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is a base of operations in a region that, in the 3rd Jihad, are dubiously attempting to neuter all nations into becoming Islamic satellite theocracies. And a similar attempt occured in the 15th century. It is happening again. And, is it no suprise that as the muslim forces were eventually stopped on the iberian peninsula, it is Spain that was the first modern sovereignty to be neutered into submission of Islamic will? Now that terrorists understand that the government responds to terrorist attacks, the attacks will continue when the spanish gov't goes against thier wants. France is next. Take into consideration that the terrorist community doesn't want to quiet western civilization. They want to destroy it. Or else, there would have been a string of small attacks over the last two decades. Rather they were strategic in nature. The Third Jihad began with the plans for toppling the Shah of Iran back in the early 1970’s and culminated with his exile in 1979. With his plans and programs to “westernize” his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target. We can thank Jimmy Carter for starting this new war on terrorism. But allow me to call it what it really is: A War Against the Western Civilization. The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. 1. The U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. 2. Taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves, and 3. Using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations. Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the facts that immediately following the 9/11 attack, their first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. I personally believe that Afghanistan is the stepping stone to Pakistan. With the UN being the sole moderator of East West relations, the United States and thus, the modern world, will be prohibited from making any defensive attacks to protect its people, its soveregnty, and its liberty. This one reason is enough for me to vote for Bush, because if Kerry enters into office, this is exactly what will happen. Back to Iraq. It's a stepping stone to Iran. Garuanteed. There were a number of other strategic reason to go into Iraq, all credible, all legit. I for one believe that one reason could have been for oil. No, not the current value of oil, but rather, the future devaluation of the oil, because, as the Saudi's overestimate thier reserves, thier oil prodoction will decline over the next decade. Thus, this keeps Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups from capitalizing, ahem, on the oil fortunes. (If you have any inkling to wonder about this, please read Strategif Forecast report on Al Qaeda's Multiphase war in Saudi Arabia ) If you think the Arabs are pissed at us now, just imagine when they try to sell us thier sand. It is imperative to understand that the Wahabbi's and the radical muslim extremists don't want to quiet western civ, they want to destroy it. I could go on for hours about this, but rather, i'd prefer questions that i can answer at my own pace.

a horrible post modernist architect. I work at a think tank here in Indy, and last night i was reading via one of our publications, his work and architectural design. I can't find it on our website, but I know that having seen some of his work in person, i can say it is truly distastefull stuff. I fear that the Fountainhead, if turned into a movie, will be completely re-made to something that hardly represents the story except for the title....

that's why tony montana is a badass. he's also anti-communist, which he explicity states in the movie. probably not an objectivist...or is he? sorry to hijack the thread, but i had to put that out there...

amen to that. i was listening to neal boortz this morning at the DNC convo, and some democrat was talking and bringing up all these non-issues, and it was just so atrocious and spun and simply not-real, that i had to change the channel. political relativism.............

1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info 2. Jean-Paul Sartre (63%) Click here for info 3. Nietzsche (61%) Click here for info 4. John Stuart Mill (59%) Click here for info 5. Aristotle (58%) Click here for info 6. Plato (58%) Click here for info 7. Kant (57%) Click here for info 8. Epicureans (57%) Click here for info 9. Cynics (54%) Click here for info 10. Thomas Hobbes (52%) Click here for info 11. Jeremy Bentham (51%) Click here for info 12. Ockham (50%) Click here for info 13. David Hume (48%) Click here for info 14. Aquinas (47%) Click here for info 15. St. Augustine (45%) Click here for info 16. Prescriptivism (42%) Click here for info 17. Stoics (36%) Click here for info 18. Spinoza (34%) Click here for info 19. Nel Noddings (12%) Click here for info

one thing that original post made me think of was: how absurd is it when one tries to rationalize collectivism via cell division....

what some of you have forgot to ask is why the word 'cult' has negative connotations...

It is natural for the government to do so. It MUST have a stance on it. specifically republicans want to ban gay marriage democrats don't want to ban gay marriage both require legislation, bureacracy, etc....the government gets bigger regardless of who wins. The only side nobody has taken yet, is the side that government should have no business regarding this matter. Think about both political parties and thier intent based on the ideas that you know about altruism. It should clear this up a bit for you.

it is in myopinion that the government should have zero authority regarding a 4,000 year old religious institution. And yet, we hear nothing from those who are vehemently against church and state.... figures...

Unfortunately true. Both parties lead the road to hell, just one happens to be the express lane. Why could the question not be posed as 'which candidated best represents the free market and capitalism and defends each (along with property rights et al)?' I understand Rand's take on it...i don't need to be versed on it again and again, but as a necessity to slow the progression towards communism, should it be important to vote regardless of the evils/altruism of political parties?

She cited him and his business in Capitalism: An Unknown Ethic on the chapter discussing....railroads, no less!

point taken. I just wanted to put the situation in context. whether i called it a potential 'flaw' or not, i think those seasoned-veterans would have assumed that is what I was doing. And i'm all too understanding of detractors on the board. I deal with them on protestwarrior.com and chronwatch forums.... thanks for the replies though.

played trombone, trumpet, keyboard, drums, and now the turntables. toured with the crystal method a while back. Fun guys...but not o-ists...

Thoyd, Betsy, chill out. i'm not here to debunk objectivism, especially as one who has gracefully embraced it over the last few months. But, i wanted to find out if I, we, could find flaws inherient in objectivism. If we could find flaws, then maybe it wasn't something to adhere and abide by, right? Or would you prefer that i read atlass shrug and perversely perform the rituals of Groupthink? Thought not. But the discussion of childbirth vs altruism did come up, and it was something neither of us could come to a conclusion to, and thus i came to this board to ask the question, and probably engage in debate. Granted I read Atlas Shrugged in four days only three months ago, The ideas of objectivism, in less vague terms, is becoming more apparent to me every day. I may not be able to spout off citations from experience and knowledge as some of you o-ists can, but I am pursuing o-ism incrementally, questioning what I know vs. what objectivism preaches. Enough of that. Thanks for the responses though, it's greatly cleared up this one 'flaw' we were discussing.

Recently a debate between a friend and I came to the flaws in objectivism. The first one we found, actually....the only one thus far, was the issue of childbirth and objectivism. We believe that, if it is the rational being that conceives, and the unborn child, the fetus, is not rational, yet, then the act of childbirth is an altruistic action, and thus, morally wrong by Rand's standards. But, childbirth could also be viewed as an act of selfishness (the woman laboured to have the child, it is the result of her caring for her body, and was created by her own will with a man), an act in her own interest and nobody else's. Thus, morally right. I'm quite confidence that this debate has been discussed before on this board, by the simple knowledge of it's controversial nature. Was hoping one of you could clear this up. Thanks in advance, and I look forward to your responses....