Recommended Posts

  • Replies 14.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4546

  • Peter

    1416

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    881

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

The suicide note left by Fidel Castro’s eldest son has rocked the Cuban nation this week, with the most astonishing revelation being the claim that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was his half-

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I haven't liked his attacks on women, on Rosie, Megyn.

What is the connection between this and imbibing alcoholic beverages?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

To get back to politics, who is presorted to be good? A power hungry progressive like Hillary who is quite willing to use force against you and to steal your rights, or a businessman who has spent a lifetime interacting voluntarily with his fellow man? These truths are self evident.

Peter,

This is perfectly stated.

It's one of the reasons I support Trump.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

What the Declaration of Independence means is the Constitution--the Republic--is subordinate to individual rights and what the government can and cannot do does not legally dead end in any adopted constitution. For instance, the 2nd Amendment is derivative of the right to self defense which is primary. (If you have the right to defend yourself you have the right to defend yourself with an appropriate something.) It does not mean you can keep an A-Bomb in your garage.

I completely agree.  Individual rights are moral principles.  The Declaration of Independence is the interface that actively connects individual rights to the constitution.  The constitution should be the interface between the DOI (with the Individual rights) and the laws of the land.  These are hierarchical with the Individual rights as primary, the DOI comes next, and the constitution should be amended where needed to keep it in accord with the individual rights from the DOI - just as laws should be changed to meet the constitution and never the other way around.

That is a very good approach to the second amendment.  It respects the hierarchy I've mentioned and to me that gives it the intellectual integrity that is needed to make sense of these issues.

 

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

What is needed is better education centered on critical thinking and western values. "God," btw, belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance. That means bowing down to God (reality by my interpretation) not the state for the state itself bows down to Him. This is not a nation of atheists and sometimes simplicity is called for instead of arcane and complication ratiocinations.

I agree with the better education and the critical thinking.  As to Western values... that depends.  I've been an atheist since age 14 and I easily bristle when I think that is taken to be undesirable.  God doesn't belong anywhere that is government supported.  God has to be a personal choice.  Defining God as reality doesn't work when it will continue to be the Christian God that everyone else takes as the meaning. 

I would like all schools to be private and if a school wants a pledge of allegiance, that would be up to them, but I'd hope that it was more of a tribute to liberty than a call for subservience to either God or Nation.  I have nothing against patriotism as long as it is framed in terms of real national values - our nation has had great values, we still have great founding philosophy and some great history.  Nothing wrong with children letting their hearts swell with pride in the good of the country as long as they are also taught critical thinking and independence (those are what would prevent patriotism founded on propaganda and lies).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Uh oh...

Here come the big guns for Hillary.

It's time to put Hillary where Jesus was!

:)

Michael

On a Cross?   Firmly nailed on????  Now  there is a worthwhile thought!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." --Khizr Khan

Khan explained the statement in an MSNBC interview:

Here is a reaction from the Morning Joe team:


I didn't cry or get chills.  The son didn't die for this cause, it's his father's cause:
http://www.nbc29.com/story/32492589/charlottesville-man-honoring-son-at-democratic-national-convention
 

Quote

 

Twelve years ago, Humayun Khan was one of only 14 Muslim-Americans to die serving their country in the decade following 9/11.

[...]

The Khans describe themselves as a nonpolitical patriotic family but in honor of their son, Khizr says now is the time for them to go public with their political affiliation.

He says he cherishes the values of this country and wants to provide a voice toward the message of unity, a focus of Clinton’s campaign.

If Humayun were still alive, his father says speaking up ahead of the election would be a priority.

He would be disturbed because of the division that one candidate continues to cause. And I say this in his spirit - he would stand with the most qualified, most uniting, most putting us together candidate versus the candidate that continues to tear us apart,” said Khizr Khan.

 

My question is:  How does he know that?  In the beginning of the MSNBC video, the Khans admit they were surprised their son decided to join ROTC in college.  They are inventing things here.  But the Clinton's don't care, they are loving the emotionalism of it all.

This really is what Rand was talking about:  emotionalism vs. reason, duty vs. volition, self-sacrifice vs. independence.  I'm really surprised to see it presented so vulgarly on stage.

Edited by KorbenDallas
//rant_off
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The God of Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the DOI  and who created an edited version of the Bible)  is the deist God,  not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or the Father  of the Trinity.  This God is the naturalist God,  the central and organizing principle of the Cosmos.  This is also similar to the God of Aristotle who did sacrifice goats to Zeus  or Apollo.  

Please see:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

"The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, was a book constructed byThomas Jefferson in the later years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine."  

Jefferson was a Deist (which puts him in the same pew  as Spinoza and Einstein)   or a closet atheist (a position that he could not tout publicly during the time  he lived)   or so it might appear from his (Jefferson's)  writings and actions.  Franklin and Paine were also part of that congregation  (in a manner of speaking).

 

Well put.  We are talking about a period of time before Darwin had written on evolution.  Before science had advanced far enough to generate the kind of confidence we have now that it will answer the questions we put to it.  Being a Deist would be easier then.  And being a closet atheist would be more important in those times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." --Khizr Khan

Khan explained the statement in an MSNBC interview:

Here is a reaction from the Morning Joe team:


I didn't cry or get chills.  The son didn't die for this cause, it's his father doing that:
http://www.nbc29.com/story/32492589/charlottesville-man-honoring-son-at-democratic-national-convention
 

My question is:  How does he know that?  In the beginning of the MSNBC video, the Khans admit they were surprised his son decided to join ROTC in college.  They are inventing things here.  But the Clinton's don't care, they are loving the emotionalism of it all.

This really what Rand was talking about:  emotionalism vs. reason, duty vs. volition, self-sacrifice vs. independence.  I'm really surprised to see it presented so vulgarly on stage.

By the way, as long as we're asking the question, what exactly has Hillary sacrificed?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The word in other places is that he [Mitt Romney] is thinking of endorsing Gary Johnson.

In fact, the core Neocons seem to be attracted to Johnson.

I don't think Johnson has a chance, but if he welcomes a bunch of Neocons on board, I really don't see it working.

I doubt that it will happen, and if it does, it would be a last ditch effort to split up electoral votes so badly that the election ends up in the house of representatives.  Not going to happen.  No way a true core Neocon would be attracted to Johnson (except out of enormous dislike for Trump).  Neocons want big government and war.  Johnson wants small government and one step short of isolationism.

If a bunch of Neocons join Johnson, he'll welcome them - he needs everybody he can get - because he needs to go from about 9% to 15% just to get on the debates - and that is what he really wants.  Even if he gets to the debates I don't think he has a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Peter said:

To get back to politics, who is presorted to be good? A power hungry progressive like Hillary who is quite willing to use force against you and to steal your rights, or a businessman who has spent a lifetime interacting voluntarily with his fellow man? These truths are self evident. There are more unknowns about Donald Trump but I will take that over the "knowns" we have of Hillary. 

I agree that Hillary should be seen as NOT good.  And that Trump should be seen as a business man with successes and some unknowns. But here are the problems.  A vast majority of the Hillary supporters have presorted her into the good.  Why?  Partly because they have been told lies and believed them (they are part of our entire educational system and mass media), but also partly because they don't understand what is good in the political context.  They will take their faulty understandings and with a heart full of goodwill, pull the lever for Hillary.  This is a case where I see understanding preceding goodwill.  The other problem is the unknowns about Trump.  Again, I say that we need to understand so that our goodwill can send us out to support him, or that same goodwill have us throw away a vote on Johnson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." --Khizr Khan

Trump's response?

KABOOM!

Maureen Dowd: On the poignant appearance of Muslim lawyer Khizr Khan and his wife, whose son, Humayun, an Army captain, posthumously received a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery after he was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004. As his wife, Ghazala, stood silently by his side, Khan held up a copy of the Constitution and asked Trump if he had ever read it and said, “You have sacrificed nothing.”

Donald Trump: “I’d like to hear his wife say something.”

Let me repeat that: KABOOM!

:) 

That's from the New York Times article of yesterday (July 29) by Maureen Dowd: Trump’s Thunderbolts.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in on Trump's Twitter feed:

He will not say the Koch's asked for a meeting with him unless he has proof.

The fact is, they just blinked. He didn't. They lose.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump's response?

It would have been better if he'd said nothing.  Kahn's wife had spoken on a televised interview.  Later, she said she didn't speak at the convention because she felt too emotional.  That killed Trump's response while keeping this whole thing in the news which it didn't merit.

Then he gave an interview and he said that he has sacrificed, and he said he has hired tens of thousands of employees.  Stephanopoulos said, do you think that is a sacrifice, and Donald went on to talk about putting up a Veteran's memorial and that it was a sacrifice.  A leader of a veteran's organization said that Trump's idea of sacrifice in the context of a death of their son is insulting to veterans and their families.  So he lost twice.

He should have ignored that till questioned (no tweets).  And when questioned, he should have said something like, "I'm sorry that Hillary chose to politicize that mother and father's grief.  My heart goes out to them.  I want to keep our children from being killed.  And when we must go to war, I will back them up - fiercely, and then bring them home quickly."

If he were pressed further on the issue of "sacrifice" he should say something like what Patton said, "As commander in chief I will ensure that it is our enemy that makes sacrifices, not our children.  Their brave son had dreams for a future.  He didn't plan on dying.  He deserved better support and a commander in chief that didn't put us in wars that we didn't need or wars that that go on forever."

He needs a bit better advice or to listen to the good advice he is getting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

Why doesn't Donald want to accept money from them?  They are libertarians - not crony-type of parasites or people that would ask for special benefits.

Steve,

Probably oil.

Steve,

It also might have something to do with the Koch view of what libertarianism and not being a crony-type parasite mean (as revealed last April in NYT):

Charles Koch Says He Could Possibly Support Hillary Clinton

:)

I used to think highly of the Koch brothers as pro-liberty intellectuals. But the more I learn about them, the more I become interested in knowing what goes on in backroom deals with the government(s)...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

It would have been better if he'd said nothing.  Kahn's wife had spoken on a televised interview.  Later, she said she didn't speak at the convention because she felt too emotional.  That killed Trump's response while keeping this whole thing in the news which it didn't merit.

Then he gave an interview and he said that he has sacrificed, and he said he has hired tens of thousands of employees.  Stephanopoulos said, do you think that is a sacrifice, and Donald went on to talk about putting up a Veteran's memorial and that it was a sacrifice.  A leader of a veteran's organization said that Trump's idea of sacrifice in the context of a death of their son is insulting to veterans and their families.  So he lost twice. ...

Steve,

I see this entirely different.

On a resonance level, I see the Democrats putting up a tearjerker victimization image and daring anyone to say anything about it. Then I see Trump pointing to the elephant in the room with Islamic culture--that women are oppressed and the Democrats were too stupid to see it when they staged that segment.

The Democrats lose (except for people who don't like Trump).

This is underbelly of the mind stuff, not syllogisms. Nor is running against the Clinton machine the stuff for etiquette school where they have the entire press corps on alert for gotchas. You only beat the Clintons in this race by verbal brawling.

Watch Trump's numbers if you don't believe me. Trump will keep to the brawling since I don't think Dear Abby is on his advisory staff. 

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is so wrong on so many levels...

Somehow it seems fitting to the style of things right now.

:) 

Michael

My bet is the donkey has the higher IQ..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's how Drudge and many, many Trump supporters see the Koch brothers

I went out to Drudge, and looked at the interview where Charles Koch was alleged to have said he might support Hillary - complete nonsense.  He politely said that could only happen if he were confident that her actions would not match her rhetoric.  In other words, never.

The Koch brother don't like Trump, and definitely don't like Hillary.  They are going to pour nearly half a billion into senate races.  That is critical.  And that is going to be their sole focus this election season.  No matter who is president, we need a senate with balls and that is anti-progressive or else there will be no stopping the loss of the Supreme Court, and massively bad appointments to the Federal bench, and who knows what else.

I see absolutely no evidence that either of the Koch bothers is in favor of global governance.  I know they both favor free trade and not tariff wars.  And I don't see any evidence that they engage in crony activities.

These guys are serious capitalists that have been active in the conservative wing of the GOP only because the Libertarian party too often behaves like frat boys.  They do a lot for CATO. 

They said that they are not aware of any contact with Trump or his organization.  It appears that they said, in answer to a media question, that they were not going to be supporting Trump, and then he made it like they approached him and he turned them down, when that was not the case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now