If you ever decided to leave the USA, where would you go?

[jriggenbach]

You get a rapprochement with China to open its borders and to counteract the Soviet Union verses the dirty tricks. You get the end of the draft and the Vietnam War verses the implementation of wage and price controls.

Peter apparently believes that "versus" is spelled "verses."

Isn't his illiteracy charming?

I think so.

JR

[dan2100]

You get a rapprochement with China to open its borders and to counteract the Soviet Union verses the dirty tricks. You get the end of the draft and the Vietnam War verses the implementation of wage and price controls.

Peter apparently believes that "versus" is spelled "verses."

Isn't his illiteracy charming?

I think so.

Perhaps, but I find his willful ignorance -- note how he ignored the link to the excerpt from your book that I posted earlier, hence my use of "willful" -- boorish if not boring. Of course, this comes as no surprise; he's demonstrated much the same across probably a dozen online forums.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Dan Ust

[sbeaulieu]

Was your Dad in the US Military? My Dad was a career naval officer and we got as far as Antarctica, New Zealand, Hawaii and Japan, whereas my Uncle Pete, also a career US naval officer, was assigned to the formerly named, French West Africa, Naples, Italy and Greenland. When I was in the Army I went to Free Korea. People who do not belong, have no idea how wonderful it is to be called a "military brat." We revel in the title. After Lavar Burton was interviewed after joining the cast of Star Trek the next generation, I said to my wife, "He's a military brat." she wanted to know how could I know. Did I read that? No, I said. I can just tell.

I remember in the Patrick O’Brien novels, Doctor Muritan spoke Catalon, not Castilian if I remember correctly. Is Castilian European Spanish? I know some California street Spanish.

Now that I am retired and doing OK, I may travel. Where to go?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Like me, my dad was career AF as a jet mechanic. He worked with F4s for 12 years and FB-111s the last 8. He pulled a tour between Thailand/Vietnam. He was rather lucky, not having moved around much - 4 bases in all. Torrejon AB holds many good memories.

I love being a military brat. I've seen many wonderful things in my life as a result.

As for the Spanish, Catalan is a regional dialect. Castilian is the official national language (Spanish Languages)

~ Shane

[Peter]

Junior wrote:

Peter apparently believes that "versus" is spelled "verses." Isn't his illiteracy charming? I think so.

End quote

Sounds to me like someone wants me to throw a stick.

Junior. You pick mean fights for no reason, and there’s Dan as usual, piling on.

Jeff has got to be one of the most hateful individuals I have ever known. He alienates the very people who might be interested in his books: Patriots, Objectivists, and conservatives. He fancies himself as an anarcho-libertarian or some such rot, and he sets out to hurt and maim, with his vile speech.

Personally, Judge Napolitano’s book, “Lies the Government Tells You,” on the same subject as Jeff’s seems to be more reputable and readable. It looks like a handful of Libertarians read Jeff and now they are selling his books cheap. But thousands of “patriots” read Napolitano.

Peter Schwartz wrote about Left Libertarians like JR:

“The Libertarian movement has acquired an unwarranted reputation. It has come under attack in various quarters for holding the value of liberty as an absolute. It has been condemned by conservatives for elevating liberty above tradition and authority, and by liberals for elevating liberty above equality and humanitarianism.

Both camps are mistaken. Libertarianism deserves only one fundamental criticism: it does not value liberty. If it were ever successful, it would destroy the remnants of freedom that still exist in this country far faster than any of the more explicit enemies of liberty.”

End quote

Hero of libertarians and anarchists like Jeff Riggenbach, is Murray Rothbard who wrote in, “For a New Liberty”:

"Taking the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialistic government has been the United States . . . . Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks adopted the theory of “peaceful coexistence” as the basic foreign policy of a communist state. The idea was this: as the first successful communist movement, Soviet Russia would serve as a beacon for, and supporter of other communist parties throughout the world.

But the Soviet state qua state would devote itself to peaceful relations with all other countries, and would not attempt to export communism through interstate warfare . . . . Thus, fortuitously, from a mixture of theoretical and practical grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what Libertarians consider the only proper and principled foreign policy . . . . Increasing conservatism under Stalin and his successors strengthened and reinforced the non-aggressive, “peaceful existence” policy.”

End quote

Now I believe that horrible insanity was written in 1978, not 1940. What a vile traitor. Perhaps Jeff could liberate himself by going to North Korea?

When 911 happened JR showed his stripes. My reaction to the “Hate America First Crowd” is visceral. Like Susan Sarandon, his hatred for his homeland showed, and his projected self-hatred still spills out, when he corrects someone’s spelling or grammar. Am I reading you wrong, JR? If the shoe fits, wear it.

It’s “knot fun knee” when he creates a “come ocean” if you guess his motives. Why did you support the enemy and oppose the American values of Inalienable Rights, Capitalism, and the right to self defense? If I am wrong, JR and all you other “protesters,” who opposed America’s right to self defense after 911, just pledge your allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I invite all Objectivists in soul and spirit to protect America and to join Francisco and Hank Rearden whenever the alarm sounds:

“On the roof of a structure above the gate, he saw, as he came closer, the slim silhouette of a man who held a gun in each hand and, from behind the protection of a chimney, kept firing at intervals down into the mob, firing swiftly and, it seemed, in two directions at once, like a sentinel protecting the approaches to the gate. The confident skill of his movements, his manner of firing, with no time wasted to take aim, but with the kind of casual abruptness that never misses a target, made him look like a hero of Western legend -- and Rearden watched him with detached, impersonal pleasure, as if the battle of the mills were not his any longer, but he could still enjoy the sight of the competence and certainty with which men of that distant age had once combated evil.”

end quote

I urge all Objectivists and all Americans to support their country and our brave fighting forces. If you see or know people like Shane who are, or were in the military, thank them for their service to our country. And support the greatest nation on the earth with your deeds. Be brave and stand tall.

Alas, our unfortunate Junior always sounds smug, even as he is completely wrong, especially in subjects he fancies himself as an expert! He is a bombastic bag of gas, whose pontifical utterances signify mental stench. See the following examples. Even Master of Logic Bill Dwyer has a time deciphering his gibberish. I call Jeff’s nonsensical writing Junior’s Jibberish.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From: "Jeff Riggenbach" <haljam@bearslair.net>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Facts of reality

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 12:17:02 -0700

It seems to me that Ellen Moore is right when she states (I hope I'm correctly summarizing what she states) that the concept "fact" is an epistemological convenience and does not refer to any physical entity or metaphysical process or state. A rock is not a "fact." A chair is not a "fact." Time is not a "fact." Most commonly, I think, a "fact" is a proposition, as in "It is a fact that time passes rapidly when you're having fun on Atlantis," or "It is a fact that fourteen inches of rain fell on Mudville the day that Casey was at the bat." Propositions do not refer to physical entities either (though one or more of the words in a proposition might do so). Rather they are statements about knowledge we have acquired about existents and existence.

JR

From: "William Dwyer" <wsdwyer@home.com>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Facts of reality

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:32:05 -0700

Jeff Riggenbach wrote,

>It seems to me that Ellen Moore is right when she states (I hope I'm correctly summarizing what she states) that the concept "fact" is an epistemological convenience and does not refer to any physical entity or metaphysical process or state. A rock is not a "fact." A chair is not a "fact." Time is not a "fact." >

There are actually two issues in the debate about facts. One is, what is Rand's position? And the other is, what is the correct position? Which is not to say that these are not one and the same (i.e., that Rand's position is not correct). Jeff is here addressing the second question, what is the correct position? Whereas Ellen and I have been concerned predominately (remember that word?) with the first.

Since Jeff is so fond of dictionaries, allow me to quote from a previous post:

t might be instructive to consult a couple of

standard dictionaries for their definition of

"fact." Consider first, _The American Heritage

Dictionary_ (1991): "Fact: Something having

real, demonstrable existence; the quality or state

of being real or actual."

(By that definition, tables and chairs are indeed a

fact, because they have real, demonstrable

existence.)

From _Webster's New International Dictionary

(Second Edition) Unabridged_ (1954): "Fact:

That which has actual existence..."

(Again, this would apply to tables and chairs.)

"...The quality or character of being actual...;

actuality; often, specif., PHYSICAL ACTUALITY

[emphasis added]...as distinguished from

imagination, speculation, theory, etc.; as, the

realm of fact as distinct from fancy; a question

of ~fact~, that is, of actual evidence."

JR:

> Most commonly, I think, a "fact" is a proposition, as in "It is a fact that time passes rapidly when you're having fun on Atlantis," or "It is a fact that fourteen inches of rain fell on Mudville the day that Casey was at the bat." >

Jeff, aren't you confusing propositions with their referents? The propositions you cite are not facts; they are ~statements~ of facts. The facts are what the propositions refer to.

JR:

> Propositions do not refer to physical entities either (though one or more of the words in a proposition might do so). Rather they are statements about knowledge we have acquired about existents and existence. >

Are you saying that the ~referent~ of a proposition is knowledge? It can be, of course, but not ~qua proposition~. Propositions refer to facts (facts about existence as well as facts about knowledge).

But I think I see a kernel of truth in what you're saying. We typically say, "It is a fact that..." with the term "that" prefacing a clause. This implies that by "fact" we are referring to some state of affairs, not simply to a discrete entity. For example, we would say, "It is a fact that chairs and tables exist," or "It is a fact that the earth revolves around the sun."

But you said that "the concept 'fact'...does not refer to any physical entity or metaphysical process or state." I don't know what you mean by "metaphysical" process, but according to the above criterion, aren't the existence of the chair and the revolution of the earth around the sun facts of reality? And aren't these facts, respectively, a state and a process in reality?

I stated in a previous post that chairs and tables can be regarded as facts, which would conform to the definition quoted above, viz., that a fact is "that which has actual existence". Since chairs and tables have actual existence, they are per ~that~ definition, facts of reality.

But, as I also stated, we would only refer to chairs and tables as "facts" in the context of a question about their actual existence. In other words, if a metaphysical idealist denied their existence, we could respond by saying that chairs and tables are a fact of reality (versus ideas in someone's mind).

However, upon further reflection, I think that what is being said here is that their ~existence~ is a fact of reality, not the tables and chairs themselves, a subtle distinction to be sure, but a relevant one nonetheless. So it appears that you and Ellen may be right when you deny that a fact can be an entity. However, in that case, it appears that the dictionary's definition is not accurate, nor is Ayn Rand when she states:

"Fact" can subsume both [a particular entity, or attribute or relation and a whole conglomeration of them]. It can be a particular narrow detail, or an entity, or an event, or a series of events." Here Rand is saying that a fact can be an entity, which would fit the dictionary's definition quoted above, but not your or Ellen's M.'s.

In a previous post, Ellen stated: "A concept is an abstraction that corresponds to, refers to, and denotes an existent, but *~fact~ is not ~the existent~.*" By "fact' in this context, I take it that Ellen is referring to an actual fact, (rather than to the concept "fact") and that she is denying that it is an existent (and therefore an entity).

In any case, however (and with all due respect), what you and Ellen appear not to be grasping is that facts do indeed exist in reality; they are not products of consciousness. What are products of consciousness are the ~statements~ of facts.

End quote

[9thdoctor]

9th, or "Tony", if you prefer,

You know it's a serious fraud to assume someone else's identity- but I'm feeling benevolent today, and won't press the matter.

Not that I can blame you, naturally; who wouldn't want to be known as "Tony"? With such a reputation !

Tony

For chrissakes, my name isn’t Tony. Barbara made a mistake, I’d have ignored it, but then it gave me a chance to give Peter another well-deserved poke in the ribs.

If you’re convinced I’m actually 900 years old, hail from Gallifrey, and have a time machine that looks like a 1950’s police call box, well, I’ve got a sonic screwdriver to sell you. No checks. I’ll even teach you how to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, trust me its one neat trick.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

“Ultimately caved.” What a horrible verdict.

What would you call it? I’ve been pretty charitable towards Reagan on this thread, but facts are facts. He could have fought down to the wire and beyond, as Clinton did. But it's doubtful that would have made a difference.

When 911 happened JR showed his stripes.

Jesus Peter, how do you maintain all these records of everything people ever said? Were you trained by the Stasi?

[algernonsidney]

Great example! Let's add to this, after he left the Fed, Greenspan also, after years of pretending to be for free markets while using the Fed to help out politically connected firms and the federal government, actually blamed the economic meltdown on free markets rather than admitting his inflationist policies might actually have caused most of the mess.

False friends are always more dangerous to your cause than enemies who attack you directly.

[algernonsidney]

double post

Edited April 8, 2010 by Chris Baker

[algernonsidney]

Hero of libertarians and anarchists like Jeff Riggenbach, is Murray Rothbard who wrote in, "For a New Liberty":

"Taking the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialistic government has been the United States

If you believe that this statement is incorrect, what facts can you provide in support of your belief?

If I am wrong, JR and all you other "protesters," who opposed America's right to self defense after 911, just pledge your allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Defense against whom? The men who hijacked the planes all died in the attack. Were they representing a nation? Were they acting on behalf of someone? If so, whom? Did someone hire them to do the job?

I urge all Objectivists and all Americans to support their country and our brave fighting forces.

I'm already supporting them. I pay taxes for their food and where they live. I will likely have to pay for any college they have once they get out of the military. I will be paying for their medical care as well.

And support the greatest nation on the earth with your deeds.

What nation is this?

Edited April 8, 2010 by Chris Baker

[dan2100]

Great example! Let's add to this, after he left the Fed, Greenspan also, after years of pretending to be for free markets while using the Fed to help out politically connected firms and the federal government, actually blamed the economic meltdown on free markets rather than admitting his inflationist policies might actually have caused most of the mess.

False friends are always more dangerous to your cause than enemies who attack you directly.

Yes, in many cases, because they're often in a position to do the most damage to a cause. Greenspan has certainly proved this -- as has Reagan and other members of the GOP.

This should lead people to question why this is so -- rather than falsely believe they're going to kick that football a la Charlie Brown. Here I think both Herbert Spencer and Jeff Riggenbach provide some insight -- regarding how classical liberalism and the Left were corrupted and this led some classical liberals and Leftists to make common cause with the Right. And the Right has always been against individual freedom.

[dan2100]

"Ultimately caved." What a horrible verdict.

What would you call it? I've been pretty charitable towards Reagan on this thread, but facts are facts. He could have fought down to the wire and beyond, as Clinton did. But it's doubtful that would have made a difference.

One wonders if he really caved. It seems to me he had some pro-freedom, pro-market rhetoric, but his core principles were basically statist. When push came to shove, the core principles won over the flimsy feel-good rhetoric. This is typical of most statists who adopt libertarian or classical liberal rhetoric. The sad truth, though, is many libertarians and classical liberals are fooled by this -- and even make excuses for it instead of it admitting they were duped and being more cautious afterward. Again, this is the Charlie Brown effect the GOP has on libertarians and classical liberals.

When 911 happened JR showed his stripes.

Jesus Peter, how do you maintain all these records of everything people ever said? Were you trained by the Stasi?

He should be cautious because others can play that game too. Here's Peter Taylor in 2003 making poop jokes about anarchism:

http://groups.yahoo....um/message/2990

He left that Yahoo group shortly after -- maybe because he felt ashamed.

[Peter]

I wrote:

And support the greatest nation on the earth with your deeds.

And Chris Baker responded:

What nation is this?

The United States of America. I sometimes forget this is not an exclusively American site or an exclusively Objectivist site.

I want to make one distinction clear, the difference between, Big “L” and Little “l” libertarianism.

Big “L” The Libertarian Party:

The party has been hijacked over the years by Socialists and Communists. All they need do is claim they support the Non Initiation of Force Principle, and then you are welcome. Read Peter Schwartz’s article, “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty,” which can be found in, “Ayn Rand, The Voice of Reason, Essays in Objectivist Thought.” That is what Rothbard belonged to when he wrote glowingly of Communism.

Little “l” libertarianism:

I am reading “The Goddess of the Market,” and back in the late forties, Ayn Rand thought of her political position as “right wing” and “libertarian.” Jay Nock may have been a latter day proponent of libertarianism and Rand read Nock. Little “l” libertarianism is one of the foundations of the Tea Party Movement.

The difference between the two is not subtle. Recently the Libertarian Party seems to have found its philosophical footing but I could be wrong. Now, it seems more like a party that would welcome Representative Ron Paul or Representative Paul Ryan for that matter.

So I find the term libertarian acceptable, but I am very leery of The Party.

Chris, after 911 we were at war with Islamic fascism and all who support them. Nothing has changed. I believe it was Roger Bissell who said years ago, “We could not have afforded not to” go into Iraq. We found 2200 hundred tons of yellow cake, one precursor of a nuclear bomb, and Al Qaeda was there. And Saddam and his sons, shudder. The Taliban and Ben Laden were headquartered in Afghanistan.

It is also in our vital interest to keep nukes from being built in Iran. I think the Chinese and Russians may be re-thinking their options on this issue. A Jihadist nuke may go off in Moscow or Tel Aviv before Washington DC, but Iran will hand them out to those terrorists, most likely to succeed. That madman in power in Iran mashed about a bit but eventually said, when they get the bomb, they will immediately nuke Israel, its corpse will rot in the sun. No I don’t have the link to the quote, but it may have been in the “unofficial” Egyptian paper or just a news story on the web.

Dan wrote:

He should be cautious because others can play that game too. Here's Peter Taylor in 2003 making poop jokes about anarchism:

He left that Yahoo group shortly after -- maybe because he felt ashamed.

End quote

No Dan. I was deservedly kicked off. Apparently there were kids on that site and my spoof of you and Monart was not acceptable. I was so used to Atlantis where anything goes. I apologized and agreed to never print it again.

I thought it was funny and I actually had a better, longer version that was better satire. I was proud of that. I see humor in just about everything. Midden heaps, ha ha.

And you know, Dan, that Monart does not want it reprinted, but there you go, once again destroying Monart Pons trust, by linking to it. You are not trustworthy, Dan.

"You have no honor." Worf

Ninth Doctor wanted to know if I was trained by The Stasi. No. My Mother trained me when I was about two years old, but I still needed help with wiping for a few months after that.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[dan2100]

Dan wrote:

He should be cautious because others can play that game too. Here's Peter Taylor in 2003 making poop jokes about anarchism:

He left that Yahoo group shortly after -- maybe because he felt ashamed.

End quote

No Dan. I was deservedly kicked off. Apparently there were kids on that site and my spoof of you and Monart was not acceptable. I was so used to Atlantis where anything goes. I apologized and agreed to never print it again.

I thought it was funny and I actually had a better, longer version that was better satire. I was proud of that. I see humor in just about everything. Midden heaps, ha ha.

And you know, Dan, that Monart does not want it reprinted, but there you go, once again destroying Monart Pons trust, by linking to it. You are not trustworthy, Dan.

"You have no honor." Worf

Actually, Peter Taylor never apologized, publicly or privately, to me about that post -- not that I asked him to. And he's had seven years to do so. It's a bit late now and I'm not really looking for an apology. Rather, I prefer to let others know his true nature -- that the rest of you shall know him by his fruits, so to speak.

As for his claim that I'm not trustworthy, the link and the list are public. Monart also never asked me to do anything about this. (Nor did Monart remove it from the list.) So, Peter is mistaken or lying here. My guess is he's lying -- as he made the same accusation a few months back on another Yahoo group, Atlantis_II, and I pointed out the same facts regarding this to him. His memory is awfully selective.

[9thdoctor]

One wonders if he really caved. It seems to me he had some pro-freedom, pro-market rhetoric, but his core principles were basically statist.

I believe that his letters, diaries, etc. don’t bear you out. And how else would you infer his principles, since you’re not allowing that he was sincere in his public rhetoric? By way of analogy, wasn’t much of Clinton’s time in power marked by the move to a Republican House from ‘94 on? Given his druthers, things would have gone very differently policy-wise. Politics is compromise, and the result is always a dog’s breakfast, idealogy-wise.

It’s funny how people associate all the society’s successes and failures during a President’s time in power with the President, as though he were a dictator.

Earlier, comparison was made between FDR and Reagan, to the latter’s detriment, because FDR’s rhetoric wasn’t pro-freedom. But wasn’t it exactly that in 1932, which is why Ayn Rand herself voted for him?

Read Peter Schwartz’s article, “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty,” which can be found in, “Ayn Rand, The Voice of Reason, Essays in Objectivist Thought.”

One of the most rank turd-piles in the Objectivist literature. And public agreement with its ham-fisted equivocations is the obligatory Cleveland steamer ritual for acceptance into the ARIan inner sanctum. A demand for insularity that keeps the ranks thin, so in a sense it serves a good purpose. I've already read it, thanks.

I thought it was funny and I actually had a better, longer version that was better satire. I was proud of that. I see humor in just about everything. Midden heaps, ha ha.

I don’t know the context, but that was actually pretty funny. Line for line I’d rank it above “Mozart was a red”. I’d like to see the longer version. Send it to me privately if you’re so inclined.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Peter]

Ninety-nine, whee ooo wrote:

Send it to me privately if you’re so inclined.

Sorry ND. No can do. I promised. It caused some family problems in the Pons family. Dan knows this.

I did not lie. What would be the point? I am the proverbial loose cannon. I don't know why Monart keeps it, either. I spoke to him about a year ago, and we were OK, but he did not invite me back to Starship Forum. And me a Trekker too.

I was sure I said, Sorry to Dan. Sorry Dan. I said sorry 6 years ago, five months ago on Atlantis II, and now here, but if he hangs around disreputable people, he will forget this time too. Maybe I will just open all my responses to him, Sorry Dan. Say, that sounds like a childrens book, like "Curious George." "Sorry Dan." OK. I will put the comma back. Sorry, Dan.

Have you seen the crap Phil Coates has to take from Adam Selene every time he signs on to OL. That ain't right, either.

You would not believe the flack I got from "someone" who might know the inner Rothbard, which is another reason I won't share it.

Back to ND's point about public convictions and political execution, and then after the fact revelations from a personal journal.

Keep your eyes wide open and shamelessly expect the best from them. Make them keep their promises. Don't read their private journals after they retire. Just kidding. It's better than doing nothing.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[algernonsidney]

Again, this is the Charlie Brown effect the GOP has on libertarians and classical liberals.

I really like this analogy.

[algernonsidney]

Big "L" The Libertarian Party:

The party has been hijacked over the years by Socialists and Communists. All they need do is claim they support the Non Initiation of Force Principle, and then you are welcome. Read Peter Schwartz's article, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," which can be found in, "Ayn Rand, The Voice of Reason, Essays in Objectivist Thought." That is what Rothbard belonged to when he wrote glowingly of Communism.

It's obvious that you know very little about the Libertarian Party. It has not been hijacked by socialists and communists. I have seen many accusations made against the LP--this may be the most absurd one of all.

Perhaps, you are confusing them with neo-conservatives. Most of the neo-cons got their start as Trotskyites, including Irving Kristol.

Jay Nock may have been a latter day proponent of libertarianism and Rand read Nock.

That's Albert Jay Nock.

Little "l" libertarianism is one of the foundations of the Tea Party Movement.

The tea parties were initially protests against the federal bailouts in September 2008. I was there for some of them. Most of the people would have described themselves as "Ron Paul Republicans." There are some differences. One big difference is that about half of them are raving xenophobes. Most of them are also quite religious. Finally, a lot of them are might simply be called localists--they would object to alcohol prohibition at the federal level but would have no problem with a city or county outlawing alcohol.

Nowadays, everyone is calling himself "tea party."

Chris, after 911 we were at war with Islamic fascism and all who support them.

Rand wrote that ideas can only be fought with better ideas. How do you declare war on an ideology? How do you declare war on an abstraction? Who is "all who support them"? And how do you determine who these people are? Finally, what are the goals of this war? How will you define victory?

We found 2200 hundred tons of yellow cake, one precursor of a nuclear bomb, and Al Qaeda was there. And Saddam and his sons, shudder.

Do you have any evidence that they planned to use any of these weapons against the USA? If Saddam Hussein was so bad, what was the reason for the US giving him money back in the 1980's and earlier? This aid even included maps and intelligence which helped him invade Kuwait in 1990.

The Taliban and bin Laden were headquartered in Afghanistan.

If the Taliban was so bad, what was the reason for giving them aid in early 2001? What did the Taliban do to the USA? If these people were so bad, what was the reason for the US supporting back in the 1970's and 1980's?

Who is the enemy? It was common knowledge that bin Laden despised Saddam Hussein because he was a generally secular leader.

It is also in our vital interest to keep nukes from being built in Iran.

How is that so? Do you have evidence that Iran will use any nukes against the USA? How is a nuclear Iran any more dangerous than a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear China, or a nuclear Russia? How many nukes do the Iranians plan on building? Are they going to build more than the Soviet Union did?

That madman in power in Iran mashed about a bit but eventually said, when they get the bomb, they will immediately nuke Israel, its corpse will rot in the sun.

What you read was likely a translation. How do you know that his words were translated accurately? Finally, what do I care if Israel is nuked?

[Robert Campbell]

Finally, what do I care if Israel is nuked?

Chris,

What other countries would you say this about?

Robert Campbell

[Roger Bissell]

Finally, what do I care if Israel is nuked?

Chris,

What other countries would you say this about?

Robert Campbell

Good question, Robert. I would be quite interested to find out whether Chris is a sociopath generally speaking, or just a Jew-hating sociopath. (Smiley not inadvertently omitted.)

Michael, I hope you will allow Chris to remain on Objectivist Living long enough to reply to Robert's question. (Smiley not inadvertently omitted.)

REB

[Aaron]

I don't want anyone nuked, anywhere in the world. The weapons murder many innocent even if/when they can catch a few guilty. I think it's reasonable to call someone advocating use of nuclear weapons a sociopath - even the Objectivists who call for nuking the middle east. However, I read Chris' statement not as advocacy of nuking Israel or anyone else and nothing to imply anti-Semitism, but just as an (overly cavalier) 'I am not my brother's keeper' concerning feeling an obligation to defend another country. I do hope he'll clarify, but implications of psychological issues or racism certainly seem premature.

Aaron

[tjohnson]

I wasn't offended by his statement because I interpreted it as referring to US foreign policy. I think it's way out of line to call him a "jew-hater" based on that comment.

[dan2100]

I don't want anyone nuked, anywhere in the world. The weapons murder many innocent even if/when they can catch a few guilty. I think it's reasonable to call someone advocating use of nuclear weapons a sociopath - even the Objectivists who call for nuking the middle east. However, I read Chris' statement not as advocacy of nuking Israel or anyone else and nothing to imply anti-Semitism, but just as an (overly cavalier) 'I am not my brother's keeper' concerning feeling an obligation to defend another country. I do hope he'll clarify, but implications of psychological issues or racism certainly seem premature.

I'm in general agreement with you here. One area I disagree on is the advocacy of use of nuclear weapons. I don't think it's sociopathic per se -- but depends on the target. I can see, for example, individuals or groups using nuclear weapons as a deterrence against attack -- as in, say, an individual or small group telling some criminal gang, such as a government, "If you attempt to invade our land or otherwise harass us, we will nuke you."

Also, Chris was correct, in my mind, to point out that a nuclear-armed Iran is unlikely to be more dangerous -- even if still undesirable -- than a nuclear-armed China. From my readings, in the early 1960s, many pundits feared China's acquiring nuclear weapons would set-off WW3 -- something far worse, for most, than merely a limited nuclear exchange in the Middle East (which is not to call for even limited nuclear war, but merely to point out the differences in fear associated with China at that time). Also, China's elite's rhetoric was also bellicose, so it appeared once China got the bomb, it would use it.

What actually came to pass? There's been no use of nuclear weapons by China in any conflict! Why is this? My guess is that one has to look behind the rhetoric. National elites tend, on the whole, to want to survive and stay in power. Inflammatory rhetoric is often aimed not at projecting what such elites will do, but maintaining domestic control by showing the national elite is tough and united -- when, in fact, it's almost always brittle, divided, and worried about losing internal support. (As evidence of this, think of how Iran did continue fighting the Iran-Iraq war, but call for a truce once it became apparent the Iraqis were winning. Why is that? The Iranian elite wasn't suicidal back then -- and there's good reason to believe, as over the top and surrealistic their leaders are now, they were even more so back in the 1980s.)

This doesn't mean, of course, that one should completely ignore such rhetoric or that acquisition of a weapon never leads to use. But in the case of nuclear weapons it seems likely the Iranian elite knows that actual use would result in that elite losing power and probably being exterminated in retaliatory strikes.

[Peter]

Chris Baker wrote:

What you read was likely a translation. How do you know that his words were translated accurately? Finally, what do I care if Israel is nuked?

End quote

Oh, Great Ayn, give me strength . . . 8-)

Be not so bigoted to any custom as to worship it at the expense of truth. -- Johann Georg von Zimmermann

The truth? Maybe I can’t handle the truth, Chris, if you don’t care if Israel is nuked. Before I hit the “shun” button, let me think Chris’s remark through.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.

May the truth win out, but by golly, Chris above and Glenn below sound like Ayn on a dark, internally gloomy morning, in sunny California.

Glenn said on the air:

I got missiles. Some of them are aging and need to be replaced. I might as well use them. So don't screw with us. You know what I mean? And the last thing I'm going to do, by the way, I'm going to vaporize you and I'm not going to help rebuild. Don't screw with us.

End quote

I don’t know. I sometimes emotionally respond like Chris and Glenn, I don’t deny it. But Israel? An ally? The last and farthest outpost of America?

I don’t feel like responding to the rest of your post.

Chris, your callous remark makes me gloomy.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Finally, what do I care if Israel is nuked?

Chris,

Then obviously you won't mind if Israel nukes Iran.

Do I interpret you correctly?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, I hope you will allow Chris to remain on Objectivist Living long enough to reply to Robert's question. (Smiley not inadvertently omitted.)

Roger,

If anyone is preaching outright bigotry, I don't want that person on OL. I don't think anyone around here does.

We have had a few bigots show up in the past and, interestingly enough, they have left on their own. I didn't have to ban them. The problem is that they don't get the emotional feedback they expect from a thriving community of intelligent people. They want a fistfight and a lynch mob. Instead they get intelligent discussion and clear disapproval of their entire way of thinking. It cuts deeper than politics. It cuts to epistemology. Independent thinking in the best sense of the word versus mob thinking.

That doesn't ring their ding-a-ling, so they move on.

As to Chris's remark, I think the Principle of Charity needs to be applied. Let's see what else he says before calling him a bigot.

As to history, I've read enough of Chris's posts to get a pretty strong feeling that he's not a bigot, unless you call being radically anti-statist bigotry. I've also read enough to know that he knows when he's being a smart-ass.

A smart-ass and a bigot are two very different things. I may be wrong, but I don't thing so. Let's see what happens...

Michael

[dan2100]

Ninety-nine, whee ooo wrote:

Send it to me privately if you're so inclined.

Sorry ND. No can do. I promised. It caused some family problems in the Pons family. Dan knows this.

Actually, Dan doesn't know this. Dan is not in contact with the Pons family. I only know, regarding this issue -- Peter Taylor's posting his fecal fantasy on a Yahoo group -- from the group where it was posted and maybe one or two private emails on the subject from Monart. (I've probably had much less contact with Monart, and other targets of Peter's passive-aggressive patronizing attacks, than Peter has. A lot less, probably, because I don't make it point to write feces stories about people -- much less write such stories and then pretend to be their friends.)

I did not lie. What would be the point? I am the proverbial loose cannon.

It never ceases to amaze me -- to use yet another cliche -- how others see themselves.

I don't know why Monart keeps it, either. I spoke to him about a year ago, and we were OK, but he did not invite me back to Starship Forum. And me a Trekker too.

I think it's plain for anyone reasonable to see that Peter probably has a self-image he likes to maintain, so things like the truth don't get in the way. For instance, it seems he's not bothered to read even the excerpts of Jeff Riggenbach's book -- stuff where Jeff discusses things like the GOP and Progressives -- to see if he's right about Jeff's ignorance. So much for truth and justice.

I was sure I said, Sorry to Dan. Sorry Dan. I said sorry 6 years ago, five months ago on Atlantis II,

Actually, I was mistaken about one thing: Peter did privately apologize to me last year about this. This was, of course, only after I pointed out the piece again on Atlantis_II. (I wasn't seeking an apology from him then either. The time to apologize was actually in 2003 (he only apologized, as far as I know, to Monart, back then) -- not now. I believe he's revealed his true character -- both in writing the piece, posting it to a public forum, and continuing the kind of behavior he's been noted for.)

and now here, but if he hangs around disreputable people, he will forget this time too. Maybe I will just open all my responses to him, Sorry Dan. Say, that sounds like a childrens book, like "Curious George." "Sorry Dan." OK. I will put the comma back. Sorry, Dan.

As pointed out before, it doesn't matter. Peter hasn't changed. He still has the same basic character flaw and actually revels in it. Note, too, how this is really just a condescending, backhanded "pretend" apology.

Also, Peter hasn't a clue who I hang around with. If he's going to publicly insult others, he should be man enough to name them. Do tell me, Peter, who these disreputable I hang around with are.