Steve Gagne

What a hoot! This is hilarious. How come it wasn't posted under "Humor" or "Rants"? Everyone keeps trying to tell "Bob" that his warmonger attitudes are all wrong, without discussing his premises. Further, the attacks on him are made as if one were attempting to convince a public official or some such other idiot of an alternate viewpoint. Sounds as useful as trying to enlist Barney Frank in helping pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. The fact is that Tancredo's anachronistic responses are brought up as if they had any value. They don't. Telegraphing punches doesn't work in boxing, and it's doubly so in diplomacy. If this were going to be a useful policy, it should have been carried out within 6 hours af any of the earlier "terrorist" attacks. It's too late now. "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Asking "Bob" to comment beyond this is merely asking him to comment on Tancredo's irrational, emotion-laden political campaigning techniques. Quelle barbe!

????? Self-censorship? Man, life is full of irony. Like expecting the Pope to reproduce.

On the other hand, since none of us is getting out here alive, there is no -logical- reason why we should care if our species survives a long time. It cannot benefit us. It is one of those things that there is no logical reason for. Now, I -do care- but I cannot defend my caring logically. Ba'al Chatzaf Bob Just because the reasons are not on the tip of your tongue, it doesn't mean that your caring is not rational. More than 95% of our thinking occurs in the perpetual wild night of our subconscious, addressed in dreams and visions of the night. It takes a monstrous effort to ride that rhino. Now concerning the making of a rational world for ourselves and those who come after, I'm not arguing from a point of "primary utility" here. but rather the concept borrowed from economics of "marginal utility" -- the incremental value, at the "margin", of "just one more unit". The particular measurable unit being, "one more day of a rational life FOR ME as a living human being". If we guess wrong and short ourselves as to how many more days each of us needs to have a rational world to live in, then we sentence ourselves to an ultimately irrational existence in the end. If we each overestimate our own needs, however, and create conditions for an "excess amount of rationality" (how's THAT for an oxymoron), there is a "surplus value" which of right belongs to each of us as its creator. Now, you may choose to leave that "consumer surplus" on the table, so to speak, as is done in trading "commodity items", but it doesn't mean that we don't have both the right and the power to specify the beneficiary of such a surplus. Witness LP as AR's "intellectual heir". She had every right to choose who would be the beneficiary of the remains of her particular intellectual edifice. Even if she was wrong. But in recognizing this, we have to presume that the creators, the rational people, are on the whole actually creating excess value, i.e., making the world a better, more rational place to live. We also have to presume that this will be an on-going process rather than a fluke. I presume that my own life is a value, and I presume others do also. I must reason from this that my parents' creating me and my generation was a value for them, as a fulfillment of their own life values. Of course this also applies to the generation before that. And before that. And before that. "Et-Cetera, Et-Cetera, Et-Cetera....." back to our common ancestors, the first two dna expressions (at least one male and one female, in close enough temporal and geographic proximity to provide for reproduction) of our species. And from this I see that So there must needs be other rational people within this community of interest, so that our efforts do not work at cross purposes, but actually contribute even more excess value, one for the other. (Also known as synergy). Of course, there are those who will die before I do, but the excess value of their efforts will make it easier for me to maintain a rational world for myself and those around me after they are gone. Likewise, I may die before others, in which case whatever creativity and rationality I have expressed can serve as meat for those who come after. For those who come after. *I* get to choose that, and so do you. And so does Michael. And Kat. And Judith. And Victor. And Philip. And Wolf. And Barbara. And Nathaniel. And President Bush. And the Pope. And so does everyone else. Reproduction -- keeping life going -- is part of our nature as living beings. If we choose to create the next generation, we are choosing the continuation of life, and if we choose against it, we are choosing against the continuation of life -- Extinction. Death. Period. Even if through some hedonistic self-deception we convince ourselves otherwise. If one can't understand that as a matter of PRINCIPLE, applicable as "right" across the totality of the human race, and dictated in fact by our NATURE, then by what "right" do they claim to be intellectual heirs of those who swore to sacrifice "Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor" in defense of Liberty and the Natural Rights of Man?

Wolf -- Well done. Only one "ever-so-slight" point of contention: to refer to the the disgusting religious hypocrisy of the current administration as "faith". As a "man of faith" myself, I know that if I'm talking from "revelation", I'll say so (you do not have an unearned "right" to impune my integrity and presume I am lying), and I cannot, under any circumstances, expect you or any other human being to agree with me unless and until you receive the same "revelation", testable against a pre-existing, recognized (objective) standard. When it should happen that you receive the Word (if ever) is NOT MY CALL. But that doesn't mean anyone has the right to censor what I may say based on it. If, on the other hand, I'm dealing from abstractions of the concretes I've evaluated by my own reason (denying the impediments of an unearned guilt or pain), I simply remember the "revelation": "Come now, let us REASON together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. "(Isaiah 1:18). I remember this, not as a "theistic command", but as a better poetic expression of a truth than I could muster on my own: advocates of "faith" MUST be advocates of true "reason". Though they must, in their confidence, be willing to make "jumps" fit only for "creative" people, that would not necessarily be apparent to a cursory, mundane inspection by those for whom the activity under question is not particularly relevant, these would only be evaluated as "irrational" by those whose first principles were based not in reality but in a value system based in an abstract symbology, i.e., an ultimately imaginary, subjective basis. As an example of a a true, rational, faith-based enterprise, I submit "Samaritan's Purse", run by Franklin Graham, the son of the reverend Billy Graham. But back to the non-interventionism of Ron Paul (or RuPaul as my best friend calls him). In an ideal world, his viewpoint would would be nearly unanimous, as in the results of a "poll" from last week:

From The Daily Mail.

It's been a l-o-o-o-n-g time since I saw it last,but I believe you are right. But the other sf films of that era (Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Invasion from Mars, Forbidden Planet, Not of This Earth, etc.) point to the anti-communist zeitgeist of the 50's.

Then of course, there is the take from the first episode of the video series "Red Vs. Blue" (copyright Rooster Teeth Productions), based loosely on the video game Halo (copyright Microsoft Corp.):

Benevolent aliens came with StarTrek; Roddenbury's earlier effort (EFC) came with the same paranoia of the 50's: The movies from the 50's the aliens always were allegories for the communists. (Except Klaatu?)

I guess this means I'll have to download another version of SETI@Home. >sigh<

Ok so I didn't get it quite right ... but here is a story of the story from TimeLine #81, May/June 2005.

John I don't remember where I saw it -- I'll have to do some looking when I have the time -- but I saw last year where a leading Muslim university professor in Yemen was working with anti-extremist forces, and what they were doing was Koranic challenges to captured Al_Qaeda members and proponents of Wahhabism, resulting in something akin to anti-cult "deprogramming" sessions. IIRC, it is working successfully. Get back to you l8r on that. Steve

It's getting pretty boring isn't it. Being the only rational consciousness, none others beyond it... Reductio ad absurdum...bound to the the single concrete rational consciousness, there is but one, mine, and there is no other.... A finite one...so when it's gone, it's gone......but when? You don't know, I don't know, so do we seek a rational world *fit* for ourselves and our chosen "posterity", one appropriate for man qua man, or do we just say, "FUCK IT. EVERYONE ELSE, JUST FUCK OFF AND DIE. I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK WHAT KIND OF WORLD WE LIVE IN. I HOPE THE FUCKIN' MOOZLIMS NUKE US. REMEMBER, IN THE LONG RUN WE'LL ALL BE DEAD." Now THAT'S ruining a life. Many, in fact. But if you think that creating the next generation of human beings (as our parents did) is "ruining" your life, that is so pathetically irrational that I cannot relate to it enough to form any credible "reason" why it would be right or wrong.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

Of course there is no specific duty or obligation to bear children -- like, obligation to whom? Where there is "obligation" there would normally be some sort of "accountability", yes? The "obligation", however is to one's own integrity: if you claim to want to have a world inhabited by rational human beings, it up to you to do what you can to provide it. No-one else owes you a rational world, and no-one else, especially a world full of irrational people, is going to give you a rational world for free. If all you do is complain about other people's irrationality and their irrational children, without bringing your own children into the world, and raising them up to your ideals, then you are just a crybaby, and your words are naught but those of a liar and a hypocrite. You already know what is necessary. Do it, or don't, as you so choose, but you are not free to deny the consequences in reality.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/l...ewed-storylevel

I'm glad we're all on-topic here. This discussion was about MONEY; how did it get sidetracked into Islam and abortion? And whether Bob likes it or not, Ron Paul will get the nomination, partly because Republicans will wake up and realize that he's the only Republican candidate who has a chinaman's chance of beating the Democrats in the current political milieu . And when he becomes president, if war is justified, he will ask for a CONSTTUTIONAL declaration of war; barring that, we won't be engaging in anymore blood-for-oil adventurism, and have it shoved down our throats as a bunch of LIES about imaginary terrorists. Now as far as the money situation goes, if you put the different reports together, not only has ole "Sleeper Cell" McCain spent almost everything he has, but Mitt Romney ALSO has spent twice what he took in last quarter. So much so that Ron Paul is nearly in a dead heat with him, in terms of remaining cash-on-hand after debts are resolved. (Now if Romney were president, would he be any less profligate with our tax money?) That leaves Giuliani as the only competition, with about $12 million more unencumbered. (Unless you include the Council on Fred Relations, the Man Who Stands For Nothing In Particular Besides Looking Good as a President on TV, Mr. Thompson. Scary. How much does he have in his warchest? God only knows!) So Bob, you got a better candidate, "put yer money where yer mouth is!"

Jody, See the following: I did read part of this report and it is very encouraging on the ideological front. The powers that be behind the scenes are making sure moderate Muslim networks are now receiving funding if they adopt individual rights, separation of church and state, etc. It will take a while to catch up to the spread of the fundamentalist Sunni type Islam (Salafi or Wahhabi or whatever you want to call it) heavily funded by Saudi Arabia, but that is the basic strategy now being implemented. This is even endorsed by Daniel Pipes while sitting on a panel beside Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan in public. I am seeing more and more indications of the results of this effort and I find it a welcome change from the previous silence from moderate Muslims about terrorism and radical Islamism. Michael I haven't finished it yet -- it is dense reading, like the Quran. One wants to hope, but for every report like the one you cite., there are ten of these: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56643

In spite of the spoiler alert, this movie sounds interesting; I'll have to look into it. What troubles me about the premise of extra-judicial action resonates through the old Michael Douglas movie, "The Star Chamber" (a term stolen from historical secret trials in England, similar to the Spanish Inquisition). Part of the wisdom of history distilled into the U.S. Constitution, i.e., the genius of the tripartite separation of powers, is that no one human being may be trusted to have the sole power to impose his independent individual concept of justice on the rest of society through force. Whereas we, as citizens in a civil society, foreswear the use of force or fraud in our individual lives, the government, which acts as a "storehouse" for our natural right of self-defense, is likewise constrained by the objective rule of civil (as opposed to martial) law to utilize that delegated right in a limited fashion. This identification of this separation of powers was drawn from the Old Testament of the Bible. Specifically: This was principle of the anarcho-capitalist government under the first several hundred years of the early biblical Israelite nation: ( a ) Judge: Judicial function of government ( b ) Lawgiver: Legislative function of government ( c ) King: Executive (enforcement) function of government And NO MAN was considered "righteous" enough to assume more than one function at a time, but only the invisible deity. This principle was likewise applied to the United States, a consequence of either ( a ) the Christian concept of "original sin", or ( b ) Hobbes' concept of man in a state of nature, or ( c ) both. Of course, it could only work here because of two sides of the same reason: ( a ) Citizens held that morality was a personal responsibility, and ( b ) Citizens rejected the unitary theocracies that held in several of the colonies, where the three functions of government would be bound in a single political body. That is, they would not grant a sanction to an authoritarian body to dictate the terms of their existence. They took the book of "rules" away from the authoritarians and made its understanding their own responsibility, reading the Exodus and the Gospel as archetypes of their battle for human liberty. I don't think that any "vigilante" approach to justice fits with this approach.

Bob, faced with the same situation, Dr. Paul would not go wimpering for a "police action" or a "coalition", he would go for a CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION OF WAR, which would give the president the legal power to take off the kid gloves and get the job done. No American president has had the balls to do this since FDR. In fact, a declaration of war is exactly what Dr. Paul proposed in Congress for these bloody jingoistic escapades in Afghanistan and Iraq, BUT IT WAS REFUSED. So what kind of government are you supporting that steals money from the electorate in the form of taxes in order to embroil our countrymen in unwinnable, undeclared wars? That spies on its citizens and has abrogated the right of habeus corpus? You think that this fascist ruling alliance of government thugs and global corporatists is a better state than dhimmitude? At least in a dhimmi society there is an ethnarch charged with complying with and enforcing the laws of the dhimmi subculture (in addition to the muslim laws), who will meet the wrath of muslim authorities if such internal laws are violated by the ethnarch. The ethnarch also "runs interference" for his own people, to keep them out of the hands of the muslim law. But this lawless group now in power here will use any means they choose to enforce their vision of global corporatism on this country, destroying it from within in the process, and leaving none to represent the individual citizen, or protect him from their ravages. And you choose to give them carte blanche? You paint yourself as much a TRAITOR as they are, and deserve the same as they do.

You need a digg link.

Well, Dr. Bob, Lord-of-the-Shard(s) (Lord of the Shattering of the Vessels?!? ), One can always hope for the best possible outcome. But on another thread it was asked what the islamist fanatics have that the russians & the chinese didn't have. The answer to that, of, course is: BABIES. They're having enough to clean out Europe & Russia & China & India & repopulate them. Which is exactly what they intend to do. So yeah, demographics have got us by the balls. Kill em all? Afores we ALL gits blowed up? :nuke: It's like trying to eradicate roaches. But maybe it's like the old saw about the 131-year old man who married a 20-year old girl, "DIDN'T WANT TO, HAD TO!"

John -- The Browns are making the point that there is no law mandating that they pay the income tax. There's a book called "Cracking the Code" by the former IRS man and current legal researcher named Peter Eric Hendrickon. The premise of this book is that the constitutional impediment to capitation taxes still holds, the 16th Amendment notwithstanding. He traces a continuous chain of laws, precedents, and court-recognized legal definitions, back to the first income tax under Abraham Lincoln in 1862, and shows that the income tax is an excise tax (a tax on an PRIVILEGED, OPTIONAL activity), that only applies to the following people: (1) Federal Officials, (2) Federal Employees, (3) Federal Contractors, (4) Compensated Officers of Federally-Chartered Corporations, and (5) Residents of Federal Territories (DC, Puerto Rico, Guam). Please note that receiving payment in exchange for labor, i.e., earning a living, is not considered a privileged or an optional activity, and is thus NON-TAXABLE. Anybody else paying taxes to the IRS is taking part in "VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE". Now I know of several people who have filed tax returns, and for years have gotten ALL TAX WITHHOLDING refunded, even including FICA and Medicare taxes, based on these claims, no questions asked by the IRS. (Please note that I have followed the logic, and believe at least a few of his precedent citations prove the opposite point of what he is trying to make. And having run afoul of the IRS several times in my life, I am not willing to risk another 10 or 15 of the last 20 years I have to live, living on the run from them. So I say take it with a grain of salt.) Happy reading! Steve

Hey I was going to post this to your other thread about seeking rational muslims, but you beat me to it! If there are many like him (hope), maybe they can do something afores we all gits blown up. Steve