John Dailey

Members
  • Content Count

    1,371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About John Dailey

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Recent Profile Visitors

4,160 profile views
  1. ~ I'm with Ba'al on every point he made on this; I also see no point in analogizing to slavery, other than what survivors of us will have to put up with if we lose as a result of Marquis de Queensbury rules about 'innocent' foreigners who've seen no worth in acquiring official protection from the U.S. (via dual-'citizenry'); indeed, their priorities show an opposite evaluation of everything 'U.S.' ~ Finally, LP's appearance has been discussed; his conclusion has been discussed; have his r-e-a-s-o-n-s been discussed? ~ BTW, this whole argument is moot,, since no forseeable US President will attack Iran. They won't have to: --> Israel will initiate it when Iran gets threatening enough to them. You can bet that all candidates, as well as Bush, are aware of this. LLAP J:D
  2. ~ Having a need to kill 'innocents' (defined here, in this context, as non-combatants who are living under the power of the Enemy) is to be revulsed...just as having a need to saw off one's pinned arm to save one's own life; that is, IF it is a need (properly determinable ONLY by the military), and not just an alternative quick fix. ~ To be sure, that we have a Civilian (1st 'Citizen', need I add?) in charge of the military is not only nice, it's a purposely built-in part of our checks-balances system: no military 7 DAYS IN MAY military coups to worry about, plus, the constant reminder that the military is accountable to the citizens it's (ostensibly) there to protect...from foreigner attacks. ~ An innocent non-combatant non-citizen foreigner is not to be compared in worth in lethal situations to a citizen...or combatant...of 'our' side. To do so is to prepare for seppuku. LLAP J:D
  3. ~ This thread is one hell of an example of over(mis?)-analyzing molehills into mountains and seeing what one's filtered oneself to only see. A child-raiser of a Down Syndrome child, and, who also has hazel eyes and a beard. LLAP J:D
  4. ~ What's politic(ian)s got to do with it? THE MOTIVE for going in and taking over is what. (Interesting that no one's asked "Why would they do this on the basis of an anonymous [sorry William: a 'self-identifed' caller is an anonymous one in my book until identifed by the callee] call?" ~ Hinted-at-pedophilia (via 'underage marriages' and PC-talk of 'abuse' [speculated community-sex or speculated beatings] was an excuse; the polygamous life-style, seen as contrary to the predominant 'Christian' way was THE MOTIVE (as I pointed out at the end of post #190), and the law there is 'Christian life-style' biased. --- The other mainstreamed Mormons ran into this in their own history. Interesting that there's little THEY have to say about this case. Guess they learned (unlike most) from history. LLAP J:D
  5. ~ What is really needed is an overhaul of the laws re 'protecting "children" (Ahem!)', and not only in Texas. --- CPS/DCYS/etc need to have legal reins put on them re any decision that they be called in to care for and even to 'monitor' (hence file reports of continued necessity for their activities). But then, I innuended that in my post #191. ~ However, only the legislators can overhaul laws, and, as we all know, all legislators are politicians 1st and foremost following their constituents' wishes; ergo, no changes will be forthcoming. LLAP J:D
  6. ~ Haven't caught the movie, even yet, in spite of all the generally glowing praise (even from pro 'critics') about it. Ntl, attempting to segue this thread back to the movie (no small feat at this point)... ...I was a fan of the character in the comics, back when, but there's something I can't remember: Did Tony Stark ever smoke in the comics (pre-'tobacco is evil' days)? LLAP J:D
  7. Addendum: ~ One can say that the choice/decision to do nothing is itself a fact of course, but, on its own, it's a 'man-made' fact, as the choice/decision to do something (irrigate, whatever) would be; the latter's consequence would be an additional 'man-made' one. LLAP J:D
  8. Chaim: ~ Sounds like you're thinking of the Necessary-Contingent analysis of 'facts.' Once LP said "must", well, that's the 'Necessary' side, right? ~ Re your scenario, one 'given' is: the desert's there; ergo we have the 'metaphysically given.' The other is: the lack of men choosing to do something with it which they otherwise 'could' (ergo, 'Contingent'?) do. It's a fact that they chose NOT to do something there, but, there is no 'man-made' consequence. ~ The lack of any 'choice' being applied results in no NEW 'fact' (man-made or whatever) being created (and distinguishable) in anything anymore than, say, a desert that no one discovered yet, though they 'could' have earlier had they chosen to explore the area back when. ~ How's that sound? LLAP J:D
  9. ~ If I may belatedly add to the prospective titles of that book whose lectures I listened to a long time ago in a life far, far away... THINKING: Why Bother? --Merely Feeling You're Right Makes You Usually Wrong!-- HOW TO AVOID PROBLEMS RATHER THAN COMPOUND THEM. TRYING TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO...Causes Ulcers for Life. LLAP J:D PS: Congrats RB; I'm hamburgered out anyways.
  10. ~ For those familiar with my past posts on all this, obviously I'm with Phil and Laure on this whole thing. It's all interesting 'reading' for us National Enquirer readers but, the content's as substantial as emptying out ash trays with 1 butt in them. --- In short, at this point, most criticizers (most especially those who criticize our criticism of them) are wasting their time, and especially intellectual energies and foci, anal-yzing every little comment by disagreers, just because they posted a disagreement. ~ There are more worthwhile things to learn from others about on O'ism...besides trying to out-Randroid Randroids. LLAP J:D
  11. ~ After reading these 11 pages of a single thread covering the same 'personality' (Rand, Branden, Perigno, Peikoff, and any and all 'supporters' of whichever) issues (called 'garbage-detail'...here) which have been gossiply over-covered in this forum's other threads (as well as within SOLO-P) and other fora, I think there should be a sequel thread called: "REPLYING TO WHY NO ONE TAKES 'OBJECTIVISM' SERIOUSLY...AT ALL." --- and link back to this thread's beginning. ~ Anyone who's read AS or FH and pops into these threads will see the predominantly discussed subjects being a chronic E!-oriented personality dissecting, pro-and-con, (starting with, though clearly not limited to, Rand) and find relatively quite less re her philosophy's 'gaps', nothing about 'where to go from here', and depending on the fora, lots about where her philosophy's lacking (with no pointing to how to 'improve' it.) LLAP J:D
  12. Bob Mac: ~ I never implied that 'alien seeding' was incompatible with 'evolution.' --- I was implying that if 'Creationism' is to be considered by proponents as an alternative hypothesis, then, thereby, so should also 'alien seeding', but, you won't hear/see them bring that up. Indeed, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur Clarke did a movie on their own version of this idea re 'mental' (not even physical) seeding. ~ Interesting that Reese subtley boils all of anti-evolutionists probs down to the very single node and point of where/when/how 'life' starts (physically, however, if at all, 'defined'), and really seems to have no prob with the ideas about any later development/changes/stages. Most evolutionists (except reductionists) are more concerned with the latter, while their opponents seem more concerned with the former. --- Makes me wonder, if scientists ever create 'life' in the lab, how anti-evolutionists would regard this; religionists would consider it 'soul-less;' but, agnostics like Reese? Hmmm... LLAP J:D
  13. ~ "Smash 'em"? (Sounds like: "Wipe them out; wipe them A-L-L out!") ~ Who needs 'authorities' when we have a lynch-mob operating on rumor/gossip ('democracy-in-action'!) in this thread already? ~ Akin to the gay-pedophilia association so fervently argued against a decade or so ago, here we have a 'polygamist-pedophilia' association being cemented into our consciousness thanks to MSM and...many here; nowadays, say 'polygamist' (or at least, polyamorist), and one now thinks 'pedophilia.' ~ Too many are falling for MSM 'propaganda' and failing to separate wheat from chaff (not to mention failing to: Think Twice). A. Donovan: I hope others have read your list of questions...before they continue to knee-jerkedly respond further. LLAP J:D
  14. ~ WSS asks: "For those OL members who utterly reject the actions of the state at YFZ, what should have happened upon the original complaint?" ~ *I* ask: ------ 'complaint'? A "J'Accuse"?...from precisely, and specifically WHOM? Who can the accused confront...besides 'The State' which operated on an 'anonymous report' (with the anonymous one still not 'officially' identified)? -- In this Texas situation, the (very many) accused clearly have no Legal 'right' to confront their original accusers. This is 'Justice'? ~ An 'anonymous' complaint to a legal enforcer-of-laws SHOULD be 'checked out' by the enforcers; not acted upon as if the 'report/complaint' was done by a legal official. --- Checked-Out; not Time-To-Invade-And-Take-Over. LLAP J:D
  15. ~ However, Reese seems to be doing what so many 'religionists' do: argue that 'science' and 'religious teachings (aka Reason and Faith) are on the same rational-debate par for discussion. Would that religious teachers of religion 'X' were so ready to argue with their ilk in religion 'Y.' But, you'll rarely see that. ~ 'Science', whether about Evolution or Nuclear Physics, Plate Tectonics or Cosmology, studies NATURE IN-ITS-OWN-TERMS. Some 'bottom line' is accepted (such as, nowadays so far, whereever there's matter, there's gravity) as a 'fundamental' and used to thereby 'explain' other phenomena. ~ To speak about Creationism is to speak about the 'outside' hypotheticalness of NATURE, whether supernatural 'hypothesis' (or should we say hypotheses?)...or merely alien (as in 'alien Universes'!) ~ This is not 'science', ergo, Creationism should be taught (as alien-seeding)...but...not in a so-called 'science' class. ~ Von Daniken, anyone? LLAP J:D