CapitalistSwine

Maybe I am just having an off day, I don't know. I just find it interesting that I seem to take much less offense to this than many of you and I lost family members and friends in that attack. I have no idea if anyone else here has however. Also, yes, I am aware of her views on McCarthyism.

Now is the time to support Peter Schiff in his senate run if you have not already. Anyone that has been keeping up with things knows that Schiff was not doing so hot in the early polling/survey numbers due to people not knowing enough about him. To address this, Schiff has recently started off a new political campaign commercial as well as various other new aspects of his advertising campaign. Better yet, I just received some great news from the Gary Johnson fan page on facebook via mass private message: "As many of you who have seen the news today now know, Connecticut Democrat Senate candidate Dick Blumenthal has become embroiled in a scandal surrounding his claims to Vietnam military service. Supporters of Republican Peter Schiff (who vocally supports Gary Johnson for President in 2012) are rallying behind Peter to launch his incredible campaign to victory. If you have $10 or $20 (or more, if you want) to spare, please send some to Schiff For Senate at http://www.SchiffForSenate.com and let's bury Blumenthal!"

So what do you suggest to be done? For these people to be forced to move the Mosque elsewhere? This is what I am getting at here. Christianity has caused just as much blood to be spilled due to their religion, no one is going to rant and rave if we put a church up near an abortion clinic that was blown up. I am arguing for objective criticism of the Muslim population (i.e. not through wide brush stereotypes but by individual merit of each of them), nothing more nothing less. It may be "in bad taste" but thats as far as this goes. We can't do anything about it, nor should anything be done about it. Yes people can criticize it, and they have every right to, but I don't see the point in this case frankly. Its almost like there is this new for of McCarthyism starting to sprout in America.

If I could it wouldn't be a very good paper. Basically there has been extensive research showing the likeliness that cannabinoids and other THC components are and in the future, will be highly useful for both alleviation of current treatments as well as to be used as a co-prescription or even sole administration for various forms of cancer. It also shows much promise in helping with a number of other health and medical concerns.

When we speak about global government, the idea that one government will control all nations (that have dissolved into states perhaps?) is logistically implausible and the likelihood of such is near none unless there is some major cataclysmic event (ala Anthem for instance, possibly). What is most likely being referred to when we use the phrase global government, if we are to be realistic, is likely several federations of states. You know, European Union, Eurasian Union, American Union, North American Unions, Eastern Union, what have you.

Did I take a wrong turn? Is this the Rush Limbaugh forum? I can't tell the difference based on this thread that is founded on emotions rather than rational thought. I don't in any way advocate that Oists should be asking themselves "What would Rand say/do" but this might be a good instance for you to do that. There is a fine line between properly criticizing a group/religion and improperly criticizing one and I strong believe the latter is the case here. I am frankly becoming a bit concerned by the unfounded animosity in various contexts by some of the Oists that visit this board when it comes to followers of Islam and a few other things. Not all of them are bomb carrying Jihadists.

Welcome. Don't forget the chatroom on the top right is also a good place to get quick questions answered. Most people are in there mid afternoon to midnight, depends on the day though.

Global government in our ideal world is not necessary and technically probably not even wanted by any means. Global government in our current world is necessarily an excellent way for statism to spread and will only achieve negative goals for society and the individual in the long run. Be careful not to mix the positive effects of globalization with that of a global government.

I don't really watch tv anymore, I get all of my shows via the net, and I have a large google reader list of websites for general news down to many specific interests, so as a result the only "news" shows I have watched in the last 2 years is Colbert and Stewart (less of him though as he irks me sometimes). Most of what I know about Fox and the rest of them doing outrageous things is via Digg and whatnot. The point is nothing but to do pot shots, especially when Hannity is in charge.

I am glad you didn't, because advocating Hitler Youth day kind of throws the whole ignorance excuse out the window at 5,000mph. I am sorry but, considering the accessibility to information these days, no less just common god damn sense, you almost don't have a right to be that ignorant.

disgusting. I am both surprised and ashamed by the fact there wasn't a riot. I will say Dr. Horowitz handled this exceedingly well however.

Agreed

So you believe its rational to make unnecessary enemies out of those that live near you? Interesting. There are times where people take this "being 100% rational" unrealistically far. I think this is one of those cases, as can be seen by the fact that every Objectivist that has posted on here has felt the need to address the neighbor wave comment specifically.

yeah nevermind lol.

The most interesting images from the study:

Its just something I have found online, I have seen it in a number of different places so feel free to use it I would say. The colors are opposite what is expected but oh well. I plan on fixing that in 2 minutes in my photoshop essentials at some point when I'm not lazy. Glad you like it at any rate.

http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/new-paper-s...ally-illiterate You can download the actual study in pdf form from here on the right side of the page: http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-en...ey-of-americans Its 23 pages. Charts and Graphs included. Theres links to the data and the survey tool in the papers appendix. Preview:

^---This I also think I disagree with this statement. She certainly laid all of the necessary foundations for us to, using reason, extrapolate the proper conclusions on more or less any subject. While some things are more difficult than others, and some things require some barriers of our time and knowledge to fall into rubble, we do have an extensive foundation built exclusively by Rand, and in essence that is all we really need. If you want an "overall examination" spoonfed to you, there is Peikoff's book: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR) which is basically notes taken over one of her lectures, and so is, in essence, essentially one of her works relayed.

This is excellent. Mind if I post this on my blog and give you credit? P.S.- That is also a good one CapitalismForever, despite its lack of descriptor/summarization of the reason.

And this is exactly why most relationships fail. Lack of communication. Act first think later, right?!?

There are 2 ways this can turn out, which I personally think are clear as day. Either there is some confusion about the issue and it may be philosophically interconnected as aequalsa pointed out or this is not a true relationship. So I would discuss the matter with him so you know which course of action to take. Resolving the issue via communication or through lack thereof.

Fixed

I don't think this is really a credible response. I understand what you are trying to say by this cookie cutter statement, but considering the subject, that just won't do. Since, frankly, there was plenty of irrationalism throughout that era...merely ask the Japanese Americans...

Hello everyone. A short while back I finished a final paper for one of my college classes that revolves around Drug and Behavior psychology and medical science. I mainly wrote on this subject because it was of personal interest to me and I used it as an opportunity to gain insight on the matter. I just thought I would put this up here for anyone that may be interested in reading it. If not, that is fine. (Please no critiques of the paper itself, if you wish to discuss the actual content however go right ahead) Cannabinoids Effects' on Cancerous Cells http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0Aa8pzZ_i...mRkYw&hl=en

http://objectivistresistance.ning.com/prof...ng-laissezfaire