Aggrad02

Members
  • Content Count

    381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aggrad02

  1. It would have been something if U.S. forces would have done that. It is not the role of our military to enforce private contracts with foreign nations. Especially contracts that were made by a dictator set up by western forces. Also the companies that had their oil leases seized were not even American they were British (I believe). --Dustan
  2. studiodekadent, The problem is that the question must be framed within politics. The main reason that Fundamentalist are a threat to our civilization is because they seek to use force, either directly (Muslim Terrorist) or through the state (Fundamentalist Christian Conservatives), to impose their belief systems on others. Fundamentalist that do not seek to use force on others are not a physical danger (from direct force or the state). This goes back to your original question: Should we form alliances with theologically liberal Christians? The question to your question is WHY? The only answ
  3. I will add more later once I can think more about this, but... First you have to define liberal. Liberal in the classical sense like the Founding Fathers? or Liberal in the modern sense which is a misnomer. Modern Liberals are mainly global fascist progressive socialist (Wilson->FDR->Kennedy->Obama) i.e. collectivist/statist. Most of them (whether they know it or not) hold pragmatic/existential world views, and worship the state. Sam Harris quotes which concern me: "Only openness to evidence and argument will secure a common world for us" "Examples of well-behaved and comparatively a
  4. Just in spite of this article, I went and walked around my grass and then kicked a bush before I walked back in. --D
  5. Wolf I agree with you on how the government has ignored the Constitution. And there were major problems with the SCOTUS way before Roe v. Wade. --D
  6. Article 1 Section 9 is full of limits: writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended no bill of attainder or ex post facto law no capitation or other direct tax (repealed by 16th) No tax or duty shall be laid on articles from state to state No preference shall be given to any port No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations No titles of Nobility Section 10: No state shall enter into a treaty... No state shall lay any impost on imports or exports No state shall keep troops.... Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights (Bill of Rights) s
  7. Well, actually, everything you cited is CRO-MAGNON activity. If you understood the Neanderthals, you would know that they had larger brains -- might have been telepathic -- and lived in small clusters and were individualists. The Cro-Magnon (that's us) were tribalists with small brains. Cro-Magnons cut their own fingers off... and the cutting of things continues... Every way you look at it, we are here because intelligence is not necessarily a survival trait, but brutality is. Sadly Collectivism is very good with the survival thing.
  8. This is a total misrepresentation of Ron Paul's campaign, but I would expect it out of Marotta. Right you are! The people who vote in primaries are better informed, more involved, more likely to write checks, more likely to be educated. I disagree with the both of you. The people that vote in the primaries are very representative of the voting population at large. (Generally) Neither are very well informed nor more likely to be educated. Some of them are more involved (most are not) and some are more likely to write checks (most are not). I know this from experience. Example, at the Brazo
  9. Nothing down (sic) by Government is NECESSARY, maybe EXPEDIENT, but not NECESSARY. He didn't say it was. --Brant Either he endorsed the views that he posted or his post didn't say anything at all and was pointless.
  10. Another quote by Ayn on the US Constitution: "Ours was the first government based on and strictly limited by a written document- the Constitution- which specifically forbids it to violate individual rights or to act on whim. The history of the atrocities perpetuated by all the other kinds of government- unrestricted governments acting on umprovable assumptions- demonstrates the value and validity of the original political theory on which this country was built"
  11. Nothing done by Government is NECESSARY, maybe EXPEDIENT, but not NECESSARY.
  12. The error of structual functionalism asserts that no matter who is in a society, it can be made or remade to any desired outcome according to a plan that creates institutions and defines their operation. The error of structural functionalism fails to explain why so few of the perhaps 300 constitutions in the world actually create the societies they putatively intend. Institutions precede constitutions. ... by the way, most of the people who are less than three days dead have noticed that the American dollar is not in danger of collapse, but actually collapsed about 75 years ago and then did
  13. Apparently, you do not know the actual U.S. Constitution, and apparently, neither does Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul. Come On, claims with no explanation are worthless. Please show how the either the Constitution has been followed in the manner in which was intended by our founders(which you already said it wasn't) or how our economy and national state of affairs has nothing to do with the socialist unconstitutional federal policies berthed by Wilson and FDR and continued by just about every President since. Or give some other explanation of your position which I might of misunderstood. --Dustan
  14. Once you see a roomful of sales trainees in cheap suits, you never want to look like that. Michael LOL... Very True
  15. Really Sad. I also had many discussions with Nick on Existentialism and Objectivism. I recently just boought about 20 Exist. books to read to discuss with him the in the future. Rest in Peace, Nick
  16. BTW: I would just like to point out that my post had nothing to do with the conspiracy theory mentioned in the first post, but rather to activism in general. Just don't want to confuse anyone. -- D
  17. I am not sure if the people on OL have their head in the ground or not. I have been posting on these boards for a little bit, and there does seem to be a lot of discussion here about a wide range of topics. Basically if you bring it up in intelligent manner, people here will discuss it. Now expecting them to agree with you.... Well we are a bunch of individualist right? On the other hand, I am not sure what people who post here are doing to actively change the world we live in, other than living objectively. Philosophy is the undercurrent of the expression of our society and how we think, reac
  18. Welcome Timur, Good to have you on board. --Dustan
  19. What good is putting them in jail going to do? Make sure they have no more children would be a much better action plan. Doesn't jail prevent them from having children?
  20. To help save the country! Galt, I agree with Brant. I love Ron Paul and have worked my ass off for him, but bring him up in sections where it is not appropriate will just anger people instead of intriguing them. Also OL is a small community. Just about any post you make in the appropriate section (Stumping in the Backyard) will more than likely be read by everyone. Just my 2 cents. --Dustan
  21. Hell no, I don't want the government telling me how I should treat my child responsibly. Especially by people that the government has licensed. They tried that here in Texas, where Governor Perry wrote an executive order requiring parents to vaccinate their child against the HPV virus. Pharma's were about to bank before our legislature threw it out. I think our laws in this situation are adequate. Parents are responsible for caring for their child. If a district attorney thinks that any parents have been negligent, and this has resulted in harm or death to the child then he can bring such evi