Guliani is Scary

[Alfonso Jones]

Martin; Can you cite a source for your statement that Objectivists are supporting Guliani? I hope Objectivist would think before supporting anyone for President of the United States.

Some Objectivists are supporting Guliani. I'd be interested in which candidate in the Republican primary you think they should support instead. Or even which candidate you think they should support, instead. Got some insights for us?

Alfonso

[magnummaid]

Alphonso,

Bracewell and Giuliani represent Cintra ,the spanish investment firm who will own the super highway. As we know, the Council on foreign relations, Robert Pastor, the Prime Minister of Canada , the President of Mexico and our President , have been working on the North American Union together ,which would seem a conflict of interest for someone in Giuliani's position or any President elect , who's job it would be to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. I would look into Ron Paul's positions if you care about maintaining this Constitutional Republic.

How do people like the term "socialist dictators" ?

Gigi

[BaalChatzaf]

Alphonso,

Bracewell and Giuliani represent Cintra ,the spanish investment firm who will own the super highway. As we know, the Council on foreign relations, Robert Pastor, the Prime Minister of Canada , the President of Mexico and our President , have been working on the North American Union together ,which would seem a conflict of interest for someone in Giuliani's position or any President elect , who's job it would be to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. I would look into Ron Paul's positions if you care about maintaining this Constitutional Republic.

How do people like the term "socialist dictators" ?

Gigi

You left out The Bilderburgers, The Illuminati and The Free Masons. And the Constitutional Republic has been dead since Woodrow Wilson's administration, if not sooner. The last nail was hammered into the coffin with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments. The latter removed the last vestige of the Sovereignty of the States.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[magnummaid]

Alphonso,

Bracewell and Giuliani represent Cintra ,the spanish investment firm who will own the super highway. As we know, the Council on foreign relations, Robert Pastor, the Prime Minister of Canada , the President of Mexico and our President , have been working on the North American Union together ,which would seem a conflict of interest for someone in Giuliani's position or any President elect , who's job it would be to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. I would look into Ron Paul's positions if you care about maintaining this Constitutional Republic.

How do people like the term "socialist dictators" ?

Gigi

You left out The Bilderburgers, The Illuminati and The Free Masons. And the Constitutional Republic has been dead since Woodrow Wilson's administration, if not sooner. The last nail was hammered into the coffin with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments. The latter removed the last vestige of the Sovereignty of the States.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Okay Ba'al Chatzaf, How do you think we should procede ? Without a congress or senate ? Who has a say when we are not consulted on this NAU proposition ? What do you see as a perfect system ? Hugely curious, Gigi

[Selene]

Alphonso,

Bracewell and Giuliani represent Cintra ,the spanish investment firm who will own the super highway. As we know, the Council on foreign relations, Robert Pastor, the Prime Minister of Canada , the President of Mexico and our President , have been working on the North American Union together ,which would seem a conflict of interest for someone in Giuliani's position or any President elect , who's job it would be to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. I would look into Ron Paul's positions if you care about maintaining this Constitutional Republic.

How do people like the term "socialist dictators" ?

Gigi

You left out The Bilderburgers, The Illuminati and The Free Masons. And the Constitutional Republic has been dead since Woodrow Wilson's administration, if not sooner. The last nail was hammered into the coffin with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments. The latter removed the last vestige of the Sovereignty of the States.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al it is amazing how you selectively pick out pieces of one of the most complex Constitutional systems in history and attempt to squeeze them into a generalization.

FYI - the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure in use for over 100 years which recognized a "federal common law" was overturned by Eirie Railroad vs. Thompson 1937 [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Railroad_Co._v._Tompkins] many Constitutional experts consistently see this case as the nexus of the elimination of elements of common law and our representative Constitutional Republic.

Moreover, is not the amendment process what made and makes our Constitution a "living breathing document?" Word do have meanings and in any argumentation, the first part of reason is identifying and defining terms from which to argue from.

I would also refer you to Charles McElwain's Constitutionalism Ancient and Modern.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al it is amazing how you selectively pick out pieces of one of the most complex Constitutional systems in history and attempt to squeeze them into a generalization.

I selectively pick out the really rotten parts. Where am I mistaken? By putting the central power of taxation in Congress and removing the States from the election of Senators the -Federal Republic- as envisioned by the Founders was undone. It was a gradual process that got into full motion following the Civil War. We have had National Government since the post Civil War period. This is antithetical to -Federal Government- which spreads sovereignty and puts only global national powers in the hands of Congress. Under National Government, Congress and the burocrats are not only into our bank accounts but up our rectums.

Going for the essentials is not over simplification. It is identification of the central problems and issues.

We don't need no steeeenking lawyers and journals for that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Ba'al it is amazing how you selectively pick out pieces of one of the most complex Constitutional systems in history and attempt to squeeze them into a generalization.

I selectively pick out the really rotten parts. Where am I mistaken? By putting the central power of taxation in Congress and removing the States from the election of Senators the -Federal Republic- as envisioned by the Founders was undone. It was a gradual process that got into full motion following the Civil War. We have had National Government since the post Civil War period. This is antithetical to -Federal Government- which spreads sovereignty and puts only global national powers in the hands of Congress. Under National Government, Congress and the burocrats are not only into our bank accounts but up our rectums.

Going for the essentials is not over simplification. It is identification of the central problems and issues.

We don't need no steeeenking lawyers and journals for that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And spoken with such a calm manner! Last time I checked, Congress passed the law on the evil progressive income tax. The Amendment process was ratified. As a representative Constitutional Republic both of those actions were completely proper as to the authority and power that was delegated to the Congress and the Amendment process.

I blame each of us for continuing to comply with immoral laws. A less radical and dangerous method would be to actively begin repealing the Congressional Act or starting the Amendment process to repeal those amendments.

It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize instead of putting on the pads and getting in the game.

[BaalChatzaf]

And spoken with such a calm manner! Last time I checked, Congress passed the law on the evil progressive income tax. The Amendment process was ratified. As a representative Constitutional Republic both of those actions were completely proper as to the authority and power that was delegated to the Congress and the Amendment process.

I blame each of us for continuing to comply with immoral laws. A less radical and dangerous method would be to actively begin repealing the Congressional Act or starting the Amendment process to repeal those amendments.

It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize instead of putting on the pads and getting in the game.

Congress (both houses) is a haven of crooks, scoundrels, liars, thieves and (in some cases) sexual perverts. The nation is in its greatest peril when Congress is in session.

The game is fixed. Americans love their welfare state and their handouts. The Constitution of the Founders is dead and has been dead for some time. I am not going to play a game I cannot win. Let someone younger and stronger than I try their luck. I will simply stand here and tell the Emperor that he is bare ass naked. That is my Mission. If someone listens, good. If not so be it. You go and play the game and see where it gets you. Rots of ruck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

And spoken with such a calm manner! Last time I checked, Congress passed the law on the evil progressive income tax. The Amendment process was ratified. As a representative Constitutional Republic both of those actions were completely proper as to the authority and power that was delegated to the Congress and the Amendment process.

I blame each of us for continuing to comply with immoral laws. A less radical and dangerous method would be to actively begin repealing the Congressional Act or starting the Amendment process to repeal those amendments.

It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize instead of putting on the pads and getting in the game.

Congress (both houses) is a haven of crooks, scoundrels, liars, thieves and (in some cases) sexual perverts. The nation is in its greatest peril when Congress is in session.

The game is fixed. Americans love their welfare state and their handouts. The Constitution of the Founders is dead and has been dead for some time. I am not going to play a game I cannot win. Let someone younger and stronger than I try their luck. I will simply stand here and tell the Emperor that he is bare ass naked. That is my Mission. If someone listens, good. If not so be it. You go and play the game and see where it gets you. Rots of ruck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Excuse me, I don't think in your tautologies. I was merely attempting to enlighten you as to your poor argumentation. I added the two options. I did not suggest that you pick the second. I understand your anger. However, being involved in electing an "open-minded Objectivist" [which I understand is a phrase heavily disputed on this forum] to the local school board will slow down the rush to collectivized statism. All politics is local.

Finally, I believe I remember on your profile that you are active with a special needs situation. When I was on my school board we began the concept of mainstreaming and special education. I tried hard to put sunsets in the resolution, so that the program would be reviewed and re-passed every three years[length of time of the elected school board], but I couldn't get that 5th vote. Unfortunately, special education has become a fiscal nightmare. However, when we started the program, children with special needs were basically locked up in basements.

Therefore, I understand your disgust with the political processm, but as Alan Drury pointed out, it is capable of honor. It is like any arte or techne as Aristotle divided them, you make a choice as a professional to practice morally and perform excellently. That applies to the arte and the techne of politics.

[BaalChatzaf]

Therefore, I understand your disgust with the political processm, but as Alan Drury pointed out, it is capable of honor. It is like any arte or techne as Aristotle divided them, you make a choice as a professional to practice morally and perform excellently. That applies to the arte and the techne of politics.

In American 'arete is penalized. And if it looks like it will succeed, then its practicer will be murdered. The game is fixed.

In our Republic, virtue ('arete) is unloved and mostly ignored. America is one of the last places on earth where -The Nicomachean Ethics- will be put into practice. We are a free and crude people. Aristotle might even call us base (phaulos). We are barbarians.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

(Me quoting Francisco) “You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning”.

(Baal Chatzaf) words rarely have an exact meaning...[1] language has subtlety and flexibility...[2] Many of our words...have multiple meanings...[3] but many are ambiguous...[4] and context dependent

My reply:

[1] Subtlety and flexibility do not make the meaning inexact. A good writer or thinker is required to use the subtle meaning –exactly- and with care.

[2] & [3] If a dictionary lists very different meanings for a word, each one of them is an exact meaning.

[4] The context in which a word is used imparts an exact and clear and precise meaning to anyone who grasps how context determines the meaning.

In any event, none of these points changes my original point: the inexact or 'smearing' use, of the word “fascist” to apply to those who do not advocate anything close to totalitarianism is a violation of the meaning of that word and an abuse of language.

In the way Francisco stated.

[BaalChatzaf]

(Me quoting Francisco) “You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning”.

In the way Francisco stated.

What is the -exact- meaning of the word "fair"? My American Heritage Dictionary gives 17 exact meanings. So Fransisco should have said "you ought to learn that words have exact meanings". Note the plural, please.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

(Me quoting Francisco) “You ought to learn that words have an exact meaning”.

In the way Francisco stated.

What is the -exact- meaning of the word "fair"? My American Heritage Dictionary gives 17 exact meanings. So Fransisco should have said "you ought to learn that words have exact meanings". Note the plural, please.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Exact meaning determined by context. She was right, after all. It's still "exact meanings" no matter how many. Note, that they seldom contradict each other; they are just different.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Exact meaning determined by context. She was right, after all. It's still "exact meanings" no matter how many. Note, that they seldom contradict each other; they are just different.

--Brant

That is a fair comment (did I mean just or did I mean attractive?).

Did Francisco utter the word "context" to James Taggart when he was putting Taggart down?

As I said he should have stuck with copper smeltering machinery and should have left semiotics and semantics to the experts.

Exactness in language is important to clarity of thought.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Exact meaning determined by context. She was right, after all. It's still "exact meanings" no matter how many. Note, that they seldom contradict each other; they are just different.

--Brant

That is a fair comment (did I mean just or did I mean attractive?).

Did Francisco utter the word "context" to James Taggart when he was putting Taggart down?

As I said he should have stuck with copper smeltering machinery and should have left semiotics and semantics to the experts.

Exactness in language is important to clarity of thought.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"That is a fair comment (did I mean just or did I mean attractive?)."

I am unsurpised that you do not know what you meant to say. You = message sender. It is a fact that you selected a multi-nuanced word. It amuses me that you would use one of the favorite words that an attorney [your prior profession wide condemnation of them comes to mind] uses in direct and cross examination - "fair". For example, "Sir, would it be fair to say that you did "x" when "y" did "z"? The person being asked that question should only answer "I don't know." because the word has, as you pointed out, "...17 exact meanings." Or, as I have trained witnesses to respond, "My answer would depend on which one of the seventeen (17) different nuances of fair you meant counselor."

Brant underlying statement was well stated. Unfortunately Brant, in my short time on this forum argumentation with "Ba'al" is useless when he has closed his mind on a specific issue. I guess you just have to pick only Ba'al's post that you agree with to engage in quality argumentation.

[BaalChatzaf]

"That is a fair comment (did I mean just or did I mean attractive?)."

I am unsurprised that you do not know what you meant to say. You = message sender. It is a fact that you selected a multi-nuanced word. It amuses me that you would use one of the favorite words that an attorney [your prior profession wide condemnation of them comes to mind] uses in direct and cross examination - "fair". For example, "Sir, would it be fair to say that you did "x" when "y" did "z"? The person being asked that question should only answer "I don't know." because the word has, as you pointed out, "...17 exact meanings." Or, as I have trained witnesses to respond, "My answer would depend on which one of the seventeen (17) different nuances of fair you meant counselor."

That would have been my response. I would force the questioner to put "training wheels" on the questions.

When I was a kid, my mother asked me what color dress a women across the street was wearing. I told her it was red on the side facing me. She smacked me upside the head for being a smart ass. I was not being a smart ass. I was being accurate. Later on I decided to be a smart ass (in a manner of speaking).

Many years later, I asked my oldest son, who was in his fifth year of life at the time, what color a car across the street was. He answered blue on the side facing him. I praised him for his accuracy. He has grown up to be as literal minded as I am. Intelligent lad, my eldest son. He came by it naturally, just as I did. He was, and still is a "Fair Witness" as in Robert Heinlein's -Stranger in a Strange Land-.

I am not closed minded. I am literal minded. I probably had (and probably still do) Asperger's Syndrome to some extent. I have learned to compensate rather well so I am not socially dysfunctional and it is very hard to detect that I do not think like other people. Think of me as being like Dexter in the ShoTime series, except that I am not a serial killer. I am just a pain in the ass (in a manner of speaking). I try to kill other people's most cherished beliefs, if these beliefs are in error. Other than Reality Lite, I do not have many cherished beliefs myself. I believe what works. The closest thing to religion I have is my adherence to the principle or law of Non Contradiction. My Mission From God is to vex inconsistent and mistaken folk with counterexamples. If I lived in ancient Athens, I probably would have been Socrates.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

"That is a fair comment (did I mean just or did I mean attractive?)."

I am unsurprised that you do not know what you meant to say. You = message sender. It is a fact that you selected a multi-nuanced word. It amuses me that you would use one of the favorite words that an attorney [your prior profession wide condemnation of them comes to mind] uses in direct and cross examination - "fair". For example, "Sir, would it be fair to say that you did "x" when "y" did "z"? The person being asked that question should only answer "I don't know." because the word has, as you pointed out, "...17 exact meanings." Or, as I have trained witnesses to respond, "My answer would depend on which one of the seventeen (17) different nuances of fair you meant counselor."

That would have been my response. I would force the questioner to put "training wheels" on the questions.

When I was a kid, my mother asked me what color dress a women across the street was wearing. I told her it was red on the side facing me. She smacked me upside the head for being a smart ass. I was not being a smart ass. I was being accurate. Later on I decided to be a smart ass (in a manner of speaking).

Many years later, I asked my oldest son, who was in his fifth year of life at the time, what color a car across the street was. He answered blue on the side facing him. I praised him for his accuracy. He has grown up to be as literal minded as I am. Intelligent lad, my eldest son. He came by it naturally, just as I did. He was, and still is a "Fair Witness" as in Robert Heinlein's -Stranger in a Strange Land-.

I am not closed minded. I am literal minded. I probably had (and probably still do) Asperger's Syndrome to some extent. I have learned to compensate rather well so I am not socially dysfunctional and it is very hard to detect that I do not think like other people. Think of me as being like Dexter in the ShoTime series, except that I am not a serial killer. I am just a pain in the ass (in a manner of speaking). I try to kill other people's most cherished beliefs, if these beliefs are in error. Other than Reality Lite, I do not have many cherished beliefs myself. I believe what works. The closest thing to religion I have is my adherence to the principle or law of Non Contradiction. My Mission From God is to vex inconsistent and mistaken folk with counterexamples. If I lived in ancient Athens, I probably would have been Socrates.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That is a fair response. You actually used a perfect example from Heinlein. My complements. I am also smart and was raised with the fact that reality is. It will not change merely because you wish it to change. If their are 10 questions with 10 correct answers and an infinite number of incorrect answers and you choose only 9 of the correct answers you receive a 90% on the "objective" test.

Makes sense to me. When I read Atlas at 13, it gave me a broad based philosophy[not complete and not perfect] which verified precisely what I knew to be true. I have not changed and like you, I never blame the hammer, or society or my parents for missing the target and hitting the proverbial thumb.

Finally, I am exactly like you in terms of opposing, logically, with the "emotional" arguments [which as Ayn pointed out stem from values and what you value because as you astutely noted, it works] in support, having analyzed my audience and established my credibility [Aristotelian Ethos as opposed to logos and pathos]. Therefore, I rarely "lose" an argument, when I do, it is usually because I made a mistake in reasoning.

Maybe there is hope for you yet! LOL

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Unfortunately Brant, in my short time on this forum argumentation with "Ba'al" is useless when he has closed his mind on a specific issue.

Selene,

We could shoot him. That might work up to a point.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am just a pain in the ass (in a manner of speaking).

Socrates said, "Know thyself."

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

I am just a pain in the ass (in a manner of speaking).

Socrates said, "Know thyself."

Michael

And I do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

I am just a pain in the ass (in a manner of speaking).

Socrates said, "Know thyself."

Michael

And I do. In a previous life I -was- Socrates. My last words were: "I drank what!??!".

In this life I have a better nose.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 31, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Selene]

I am just a pain in the ass (in a manner of speaking).

Socrates said, "Know thyself."

Michael

And I do. In a previous life I -was- Socrates. My last words were: "I drank what!??!".

In this life I have a better nose.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, the problem is that now you have confirmed that you relied on one sense once and died, but you are willing to count on one sense again, hmmm here's an idea all the senses are connected to the brain - maybe you should work on this section in this re-generation.

[Brant Gaede]

I am just a pain in the ass (in a manner of speaking).

Socrates said, "Know thyself."

Michael

And I do. In a previous life I -was- Socrates. My last words were: "I drank what!??!".

In this life I have a better nose.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In your previous life you spoke idiomatic English?

--Brant