Aggrad02

Ron Paul authorized the bill for President Bush to pursue the attackers of 9/11. And has said that that was what he would have done. He would not have gotten sidetracked with Iraq or taken any crap from Pakistan. Since Osama Bin Laden is probably there, he thinks we should have pursued him until caught. He also thinks the US should shave issued letters of marque and reprisal's against bin Laden and Al Qaeda, similar to what Jefferson did to the Barbary Pirates. -Dustan

Threatening Saudi Arabia which is one of our main oil suppliers and invading Kuwait. Someone once remarked that if Saddam threatened half the world's supply of prune juice we would not have sent in a single soldier. Ba'al Chatazaf When did he ever say he wasn't going to sell it to us?

Chris, Exact numbers are not known for either deaths from the sanctions or deaths associated with the regime of Saddam Hussein, so all figures are only rough estimates. Saddam Hussein, during the years that he ruled Iraq, is estimated to have killed about 200,000 Iraqis. During the 8 years of the Iran - Iraq war, Iran is estimated to have suffered about 1 million deaths, including an estimated 100,000 killed by Iraqi chemical weapons. Some of these weapons or their precursors were provided by the United States. As for the sanctions, as I indicated in an earlier post on this thread, estimates of deaths caused by these sanctions range between about 100,000 and 1 million. So, not counting the deaths from the Iran - Iraq war, it is quite possible that the sanctions killed more Iraqis than did Saddam Hussein. This is typical of the kind of "help" that the US government frequently provides. The sanctions, which were justified as being necessary to destroy the Hussein regime, may have killed more Iraqis than the Hussein regime itself. Martin The alternative to avoiding collateral damage is to let the bad guys do whatever they damn please. Is that what you want? Ba'al Chatzaf. What was Saddam doing to us that was any of our concern? Dustan

Your boundless admiration for our Constitution may be a trifle far-fetched and misplaced. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits government from super-surveillance with thousands of Big Brother cameras everywhere and the recording of all sorts of transactions. Once it is granted that acts made in public can be observed by the public, it is a short jump to having camerals mounted on every lamp post. Furthermore, our Constitution, however otherwise admirable it may be, permits (quite explicitly) the regulation of interstate commerce. This principle, written in black and white became the superordinate principle of the New Deal. The results? Google; Department of Agriculture v. Wychard. Subsumed under the regulation of interstate commerce is the Food and Drug act. And you know what insanity has flowed from this. Historically our blessed Constitution permitted chattel slavery until 1865 and it took a war that killed 620,000 and maimed another million and a half to bring about a change. I have reservations on how -wonderful- our Constitution is. And yes, I appreciate the first and second amendment. Unfortunately the tenth amendment is oft ignored and the ninth amendment is not a useful as you think. Our privacy receives scant protection under the fourth amendment. There is more to privacy than the requirement of search-warrants. What under our Constitution will protect us from a hyperactive Supreme Court. Answer: damned little. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al I have a couple of responses to your post, but the first is that the Civil War was not about slavery, and every other country in the world was able to get rid of it without a war. --Dustan

Here ya go: http://digg.com/search?s=%22Ron+Paul%22&am...l&sort=most

Back to Ron Paul 4 President. Here is some video of a speech he made in Iowa on Saturday in front of 1,000. This is part 1, part 2 through 8 can be found on the right hand side of this video. --Dustan

Hey thats great to hear galt. There are also some meet-up groups in your area that you can join to help the campaign (this is the main way that volunteers are being coordinated) http://ronpaul.meetup.com/373/?gj=sj6 (Worchester/Shrewsbury) has 6 members http://ronpaul.meetup.com/68/?gj=sj6 (Boston) has 132 members --Dustan

They can even use their Harry Potter glasses in their Greenspan costumes.

And unicorns exist in fairy tales along with dragons and wicked witches who cast spells. Ba'al Chatzaf Then we agree. --Dustan

Please let us know when they come out. I would love to read them as well. --Dustan

That is really great to hear Chris. I know you are probably a very busy person but here is a link to a meetup group in Washington D.C. that meets to talk about and support Rep. Paul. http://ronpaul.meetup.com/366/?gj=sj6 in DC 7 members http://ronpaul.meetup.com/30/?gj=sj6 in Alexandria/Arlington 111 members Here is the link about your primary. It is on Jan 8 and you have to register Republican. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/DC-R.phtml --Dustan

The all you need to know is the difference between Out There and In Here. Out There is where the hard stuff is. In Here is where the abstractions live. Ba'al Chatzaf I not sure I understand you 100%, but it sounds right on the face of it. You are apart of the world, your consciousness tries to make sense out of the objective world by using reason. Dustan

If you look at your problem, it will answer its self. You cannot talk about x without it existing (the first sentence that I left of your quote) Since x must exist to talk about x, then e(x) is a illogical. Really. Then why do Objectivists talk so much about John Galt and Dagney Taggart. Neither exist. Ba'al Chatzaf If you read my response you will see the answer to that, they exist as ideas, not people. Edit-- They also exist as characters in a book written by the philosopher Ayn Rand Dustan

I know that Greenspan was close to the collective when he was young, but is considered to have strayed once he entered politics and got involved with the fed. Here is a video of Paul attacking Bernake and the Fed, for evils of paper money.

To get this back to Ron Paul for president, why don't you think he can win. Right now his chances are not as good as others. But as his ideas (not really his, but the ideas of the founding fathers, Austrian economist and the likes of Ayn Rand) people are getting excited, people are deciding to vote that have never voted before. Democrats are changing party affiliation to vote in the Republican primary. It is really incredible Yesterday, the Iowan's for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance held a presidential forum in Des Moines and invited everyone who was a Repbulican candidate except Ron Paul. He asked to be invited and they still said no. So he rented the hall right next to theirs and held a forum of his own after the ITR/ICA forum. The ITR/ICA forum got 600 attendees, Ron Paul all by his lonesome filled his with about 1000 people. I think it is monumental what is going on. But you are not going to hear about it on Fox News or CNN. Google Ron Paul, go to youtube.com, meetup.com, facebook.com, myspace.com, or eventful.com, see what is happening. Two months ago he was polling at 1% or less, after the first two debates he was at 2%, now it is going close to 3. In a Utah straw poll he got second behind Romney who is Mormon. In a recent California straw poll he got 6%. His donations keep going up and so does his supporters and his donations. If you are an objectivist or a fan of Ayn Rand, read his speeches and papers at ronpaullibrary.com, if someone told you Rand wrote those words, most of the time would probably believe it. He is an obejectivist's dream candidate. here is a video of some of his ideas and stances: --Dustan

By the way Ba'al I agree with your conclusion. Existence is not a predicate. Objects exist, it is self evident. To say x is to say x exist as something (whether that is an object or idea) Dustan

If you look at your problem, it will answer its self. You cannot talk about x without it existing (the first sentence that I left of your quote) Since x must exist to talk about x, then e(x) is a illogical. Would you like to talk about my pet Unicorn? I would. Rethink what you said. One can easily talk about five sided triangles. See! I just did. But there aren't any. As long as the empty set exists (it does, in the same way as non-empty sets) one can talk about thinks that do not exist. They are elements of the empty set. Ba'al Chatzaf You can talk about five sided triangles and your pet unicorn all you want, but they are only ideas (your idea exist as a thought) but they are not objects. Example: If x is my computer, then x exist as an object sitting on my desk. You cannot add or take away existence. If x is your pet unicorn, then x exist as a thought in your head, but not as an object in you yard. You cannot add or take away existence. They are two different things. --Dustan

I don't have time right now to give a good response to existence. But I just wanted to make a note about this sentence. Existence cannot be a value that a variable could assume. Because anything that does have the value could not obtain "existence" from nonexistence. From Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pg. 156, [ibid] Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the extents..... The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exist, has ever existed or will ever exist. Then it makes no sense. Existence can only be assert of an object that satisfies some predicate. What predicate is associated the existence of Existence? Ba'al Chatzaf I was a little tired last night so I'm sorry if I'm not clear. What I'm trying to say is that if there is an object, then it exist. Existence is not a property, you can not take it away from an object. Like wise it cannot be added to something that doesn't exist to make it exist. If my car is red, I can scrape the paint away to make it not red, or paint it blue to make it blue, but I can't make it not exist. If I destroy the car, I am destroying the object, not the existence of the object. I think, I am not positive about this, but Ayn was trying to combat the skeptics that say that existence may not exist and the world was not real, or could be different from what you are seeing and so forth. She was saying no! You wake up in the morning, open your eyes and see something. You exist and there is a world of objects out there that also exist. You understanding of this is your consciousness. --Dustan

If you look at your problem, it will answer its self. You cannot talk about x without it existing (the first sentence that I left of your quote) Since x must exist to talk about x, then e(x) is a illogical.

I don't have time right now to give a good response to existence. But I just wanted to make a note about this sentence. Existence cannot be a value that a variable could assume. Because anything that does have the value could not obtain "existence" from nonexistence. From Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pg. 156, [ibid] Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the extents..... The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exist, has ever existed or will ever exist.

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_20...aul-on-imm.html June 28, 2007 Ron Paul on Immigration and Iowa Dear friend, From time to time, I’m going to send you my thoughts during this campaign. Your support is so important to me, and I want you to know what’s happening. Today, we had good news from the US Senate—not exactly a normal occurrence—when the president’s immigration bill went down in flames. Here we had a vastly expensive piece of legislation that would have made the immigration problem worse, and put more controls on the economy. So naturally, the entire establishment was behind it. It was a slam-dunk, or so they thought. Then the American people got riled up, and despite all the special interests, the pressure, the media, and the money, scared the politicians enough to vote the right way. If our campaign succeeds, this will happen on a whole range of issues. The politicians will hear from the people on foreign wars, high taxes, Fed inflation, and all the other plagues visited on us by DC. And listen they will. And speaking of our campaign, I am very excited by the Iowa rally this Saturday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=16OCg4C1fq5W47gNJo_2bDHw_3d_3d). This is an historic moment. Of course, the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief had the right to exclude the most pro-life, anti-tax candidate in the race. But when they did so, people rose up. So we are holding a rally that will reverberate around this country. Our campaign goes from strength to strength, but I am convinced that this Saturday will be very important in the fight for a free, peaceful, and prosperous America. Maybe you can come to the rally. In any event, I know you’ll be there in spirit, and I’ll write you all about it afterwards. Your support in this race means everything to my family and me. Warmest regards, Ron PS: Because of people like you, I don’t need the $100 million the establishment candidates will have. But I do need your help. $25, $50, $100, or even more--whatever you can send would do so much good, and be so much help. Thank you! Donate Here https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ Wish I could be in Iowa this weekend, sigh, Dustan

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor killed fewer than 3000 of our people. When we got through with the Japanese we killed over three million of theirs and burned most of their cities to the ground. That is the nature of warfare. If they attack you, retaliate with overwhelming force. That is how one should fight wars. You will notice that the Japanese have not attacked us since 1945. It is no coincidence. You will also notice that we have had little trouble from the Germans since 1945. The moral of the story is that if one is to fight a war, he should fight with overwhelming force. Proportional response can only bring woe. This is what happened in the Viet Nam War. Secretary of Defense MacNamara did not fight war, rather he sent messages to the enemy. Had we nuked Hanoi on day one, we would not have lost 60,000 of our people. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck --- Original Thought and All Mine. Ba'al Chatzaf You are still ignoring the points of Martin and myself that we created this mess by meddling in the Mid-East to begin with. I am calling you out to respond to this. Dustan We did not "meddle" in the middle east any more than we meddled in Eastern Europe. We defended our interests (and badly at that). We "meddled" with the Soviet Union (now defunct) by giving stingers to bin Laden and his friends in Afghanistan (bad mistake). We have been paying the Saudis blackmail to get our oil after they stole it from us and the Europeans who found it and built the oil fields. Is this "meddling"? We have foolishly allowed oil to become crucial to our economic survival. Given this, we have simply defended our interests. If this offends the Muslims and they get "uppity" then we will have to kill a lot of them. Shit happens and most of it flows downhill. I hope most of it flows downhill on their heads. Such are the infelicities of modern life. Once you realize we are living in a rough neighborhood and the world is essentially lawless, you will get used to bloodletting. Either that, or you won't survive. Morality and $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts ™. That should indicate just how valuable morality is. Ba'al Chatzaf How can you say that it is our oil and our interest. It isn't my oil or my interest. Its probably not yours either. That is a bull answer and is just an excuse to steal other people's resources, and is not capitalistic at all. So what if they didn't sell us their oil, the market would have figured out alternative fuels 50 years ago and we would be just fine. Also the excuse that we meddle else where is bull also, two wrongs don't make a right. Once you realize that no-one can threaten American Security at home if we put our resources to defending our borders and our country, the better. And we don't live in a rough neighbor hood, we live in the suburbs and we are driving across the tracks to steal oil and it is causing us problems. Government interference in the economy has never worked and this is just another case of it. A while ago you claimed to be capitalist but this last post was clearly fascist. From wikipedia: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism Dustan

Chris, I haven't answered your original question yet because I want to formulate a very coherent answer that is complete as possible. But as a preview, I think that militant followers of Islam is the second most pressing problem facing our country. The most important and dangerous problem facing our country is Statism, whether it is from the Democrats trying to socialize or the Neocons trying to authoritize. Militant Islam wouldn't be a problem for us if our past and current leaders were not meddling in their affairs. For example, communism is immoral and horrible, but look at the approach we have taken to China, we trade with them and we haven't had any threats to our safety nor to our ideas (because ours are superior), while they are opening up and becoming more capitalistic every day. If we would have taken the same approach in the Mid-East I am sure that we would not be having the problems we are today with radical islam and oil would be cheaper to boot. Thanks, Dustan

Roger, There is that small issue of scope, but maybe that's only a detail... As to kind, I can't help seeing a difference between Hitler and Truman. Both were killers. I would never want Hitler in the White House. Michael Michael, You do know that Hitler used trumped up patriotism to start preemptive wars for what he considered national defense. Dustan

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor killed fewer than 3000 of our people. When we got through with the Japanese we killed over three million of theirs and burned most of their cities to the ground. That is the nature of warfare. If they attack you, retaliate with overwhelming force. That is how one should fight wars. You will notice that the Japanese have not attacked us since 1945. It is no coincidence. You will also notice that we have had little trouble from the Germans since 1945. The moral of the story is that if one is to fight a war, he should fight with overwhelming force. Proportional response can only bring woe. This is what happened in the Viet Nam War. Secretary of Defense MacNamara did not fight war, rather he sent messages to the enemy. Had we nuked Hanoi on day one, we would not have lost 60,000 of our people. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck --- Original Thought and All Mine. Ba'al Chatzaf You are still ignoring the points of Martin and myself that we created this mess by meddling in the Mid-East to begin with. I am calling you out to respond to this. Dustan