algernonsidney

Yes, free Bradley Manning.

I can think of at least TWENTY Eastwood movies that I like better than Unforgiven.

I'm keeping an open mind on this. The fact that the director was hired so late worries me a little more. Having good people behind the camera is essential, probably more essential than having good actors or actresses. I don't have any trouble with the cast, even though they are people whom I have mostly never heard of. I'm largely convinced that these kind of actors try harder than A-list actors. Mainly, I hope that everyone that is working on this respects the book. One criteria, hopefully, is that every one of them has read the book at least once and that they understood it and liked it. The rush to production is simply a rush to get started. Now that he has started it, he can go as slowly as he wants. Actors and directors can and do work with deadlines. On Sunday morning, the cast and crew of Saturday Night Live start to build a show from scratch. They write the show, pick skits for the show, put it together, and rehearse it. By the time Saturday comes, they are ready to go.

<br><br>The whole cult of Zionism is based on the very wrong belief that everybody hates Jews. Because "everybody hates Jews," Jews must have their own country to be "safe." When you think about it, Zionism really is a cult. All cults have this belief that "everybody hates us."<br><br>There are well over one billion Muslims in the world.<br><br>

Martin, I just realized that perhaps the saddest aspect of all this is that the critical reviews of Atlas Shrugged are coming true in the Objectivist movement now. Those reviews included comments like: "Galt is arguing for dictatorship." and "To a gas chamber go." We are seeing that right now by the people running ARI and TAS. They argue for dictatorships and are basically arguing for the genocide of over one billion people. In this case, Galt's Gulch is Israel. All of Israel's enemies are to be killed. Israel really doesn't discriminate either. They also despise the few Christians who live there.

I think of it as a 'Stockholm Syndrome' in reverse - the touted "friend and saviour" of Gazans, has since become their captor. This is an excellent analogy. I don't think it matters where you go. Politicians are always going to be politicians. In many respects, all citizens are "prisoners of their government." Unfortunately, every society has a portion (maybe 20%) of people who want to tell everyone else in society what to do. They know what is best for everyone else. They have the solution to all of "society's problems." They just need the power to do it. And some of these people are just be sadists. More importantly, every society has a large portion (about half) of people who just want to be told to do, what to think, etc. These are the types who say: "Yes, I killed the Jews. I was only following orders." I think this is actually the main problem with Islam--it encourages people to bow down and be servile. I think this is why Muslims don't rise up and say: "We are not going to be ruled by goons. We are going to have a civilized society with a civilized government."

No, it does not. The Mafia doesn't kill kids. I imagine Tony Soprano would be really pissed to read this article.

Do you equate all Gazans with Hamas? That's about like equating all Americans with Barack Obama. About half the people in Gaza are children, which means they don't give much thought to politics and have no influence whatsoever on elections that happen there.

A blockade, by definition, is interference by a third party in the trade of two parties who wish to trade. If I want to sell a penicillin to someone in Gaza, what gives anyone else the right to stop it? This is an area with a population density of over 10,000 per square mile. That's higher than Singapore or Hong Kong. The Gazans have to import food. They have to trade goods and services with other people. If people can't get what they need to survive, what can you expect them to do? They are naturally going to try to kill the people who are keeping them from their food.

deleted

I'm going to assume that most people here are on Facebook, so I figure I will get a lot of opinions. Since I see everyone's computer at my workplace, I know that a lot of my co-workers are on Facebook. A lot of them have also friended each other. I also think that friending my co-workers on Facebook would be a HUGE mistake. I have 835 friends on Facebook, so I figure it's only a matter of time before I bump into one of my co-workers. Fortunately, my name is common enough that I am not that easy to find. Work is work, and personal life is personal. I am very political on Facebook. I express my opinions on Facebook. I say things on Facebook that I would never say in the workplace. My company doesn't need to know anything about my life. I figure that anything I do on Facebook can and will be used against me. What does everyone else think? Do you friend your co-workers on Facebook?

Part of the brilliance of that little book is that Hayek explained it in terms that people can easily understand. Yes, Rand didn't like Hayek--I am still not sure why though. I know a lot of people who are turned off by the sheer size of Rand's novels. This is the main reason why I direct them to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I do think that Road to Serfdom is an easier book. I can't find any real flaw with the book, although it's been a long time since I read it (1991 or 1992). Hayek never really reached out to libertarians anyway, although libertarians have always respected him. The other thing I love about the book is that it is an important reminder of the true meaning of the word liberal. Far too many libertarians have surrendered that word, even though it is a word that will always belong to them.

That's actually what I am referring to, Barbara. This especially applies to Mariah's early stuff, before she divorced Tommy Mottola. There was a very happy and positive vibe to her music. Another guy I know described her as "syrupy sweet." I really prefer the Mariah Carey of those days.

I have long held the belief that Ayn Rand would have loved Mariah Carey. I still stand by that.

For whatever reason, Americans have never cared about soccer. Here are some theories on that: http://soccerlens.com/7-reasons-why-americans-suck-at-soccer/8115/ http://superfrenchie.com/?p=839 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1184033/posts

Jim, I would like to see everyone live freely. By everyone, I mean Israelis and the people who live in countries around them. So-called Objectivists are the only ones who advocate killing the one billion Muslims in the world. Not only is it immoral--it's also impossible. Are you really dissing Israel's high-tech, pharmaceutical and medical industries. They're a gold mine of some of the most innovative scientists and techologists on the planet. Are you saying this only about Israel? South Korea could overrun North Korea in a few weeks. North Korea is poor, backward. The people there are barely alive. South Korea does not need us. Egypt and Pakistan have no science. They truly have nothing to offer to anyone. All they offer the world is religious cultism. They have become the most hated country in the world. American foreign policy is summed by a simple phrase of Garet Garrett: "Everything goes out. Nothing comes in." Why should productive Americans pay to defend other countries? They are trying to break a starvation blockade. Gaza is basically the Warsaw Ghetto, and about half the people there are children. The only way that the people there can survive is through free trade with everyone around them.

Who exactly invented those things? Imagine all those scientists in America. Would they have done the same thing here? Would they have done the same thing in Britain, Estonia, Singapore, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, or Switzerland? I appreciate your list. Thank you.

And you are free to do whatever you want. You can prostitute yourself to any soldiers. You can go work on a kibbutz. You can send them all your money. If you need Israel, then lay down your life for Israel.

Hello, Israel, this is John Galt speaking. Back in 1776, a really great man named Thomas Jefferson penned a document we now call the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote of inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He later stated in his inaugural address that he believed in "friendly relations with all... entangling alliances with none." The nation based on Mister Jefferson's ideas might not have gained independence without the aid of France. But eventually the nation prospered and was able to defend itself from all enemies foreign and domestic. We call that nation the United States of America. The nation prospered and flourished and continued to do so into the 20th century. In 1947, you were born. Other nations immediately tried to kill you in your maternal crib. Perhaps out of the American sympathy for underdogs, many Americans sympathized with your cause. The American government began giving you money, billions and billions of dollars. It's time for us to withdraw, Israel. If you can not stand on your own feet now, you never will. We do not need you. We never did need you. We never will need you. Our survival and prosperity does not depend on you. We flourished without you, and we can still flourish with you. You have nothing to offer us. You are sixty years old. It's time to grow up and support yourself. You can move out of mom and dad's house and live on your own. Good-bye and good luck, Israel.

Hello, Israel, this is John Galt speaking. Back in 1776, a really great man named Thomas Jefferson penned a document we now call the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote of inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He later stated in his inaugural address that he believed in "friendly relations with all... entangling alliances with none." The nation based on Mister Jefferson's ideas might not have gained independence without the aid of France. But eventually the nation prospered and was able to defend itself from all enemies foreign and domestic. We call that nation the United States of America. The nation prospered and flourished and continued to do so into the 20th century. In 1947, you were born. Other nations immediately tried to kill you in your maternal crib. Perhaps out of the American sympathy for underdogs, many Americans sympathized with your cause. The American government began giving you money, billions and billions of dollars. It's time for us to withdraw, Israel. If you can not stand on your own feet now, you never will. We do not need you. We never did need you. We never will need you. Our survival and prosperity does not depend on you. We flourished without you, and we can still flourish with you. You have nothing to offer us. You are sixty years old. It's time to grow up and support yourself. You can move out of mom and dad's house and live on your own. Good-bye and good luck, Israel.

According to the Gaza Strip article on Wikipedia, this area has a population density of over 10,000 people per square mile. This is higher than Hong Kong and Singapore. It is less than Monaco and Macao. I would really love to know how the hell these people are supposed to work themselves out of poverty. They can not leave the area. They can not bring in food. without permission from Israel. Of course, they could try to grow their own food. But that's not a realistic option. The people of Hong Kong, Singapore, Monaco, and Macao have to import their food as well. I don't know of any geographic entity that has over 10,000 people per square mile and grows its own food. That's because it's impossible. Try working without food. Let's see how productive you are. See how much work you can get done when you can't eat.

I didn't miss that one. According to dictionary.com, the words have the same origin. The change also took place in 1935. It is Sanskirt in origin. I believe that Persia is Greek in origin.

Tony, First of all, I am sorry I did not make this more clear. I AM NOT THE AUTHOR of the article. I am merely posting it here. I certainly do endorse just about everything in the article. That is mainly because it is one that a lot of people are talking about. It seems to me that private individuals were simply engaging in a charity mission benefitting other private individuals. I agree. Do you have a right to set up a checkpoint so you can "check" other people? What gives anybody such a right?

http://c4ss.org/content/2680?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+c4ss+%28Center+for+a+Stateless+Society%29 The Israeli government faces condemnation for its attack on a flotilla of ships carrying relief supplies to Gaza. Its excuses for the nighttime airborne assault show what the logic of state superiority looks like when taken to its deadly extreme. Supposedly the raid had to be done, because the flotilla challenged Israel’s control of Gaza. When a mindset is adopted that the state must control everything within a certain area, then anything the state does not have a hand in is seen as a threat. But transporting medical supplies and “luxuries” like toys and unapproved foods really only threatens a government’s control. Essentially, the activists on the ships were attacking Israel’s concept of the border by transporting supplies in violation of the rules made by those who drew the boundaries with force. Believing that a border must be defended from those who peaceably defy it leads to attacks on human beings. The preservation of power comes before the preservation of human life. One can see parallels in United States border politics. Immigrants from a certain demographic are thought of as less-worthy humans and blamed for the harm that the ruling class has done. Those apprehended by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement are regularly treated worse than actual criminals. New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee and The Nation reporter Jacqueline Stevens have described routine abuse and secretive detention centers used to punish those who infringe on a statist concept. Israeli officials have whined about a heavily armed boarding party getting struck with bludgeons and sharp objects. The ships’ crews and passengers had every right to repel boarders from their ships — even if they had used firearms, which there is no evidence of anyone on board possessing. And even if Israeli forces did not begin shooting before landing on the ships, as some allege. The concepts of sovereignty and authority mean that some people are assigned higher worth than others. The king’s men may assault you, and resisting them automatically legitimizes any violence done against you, including the violence against you that began the exchange. It is like when cops batter and cage an individual for pushing them back, or shoot a person during a drug raid. As Roderick Long notes in his aaeblog.com post The Logick of Kings: “The Israeli government explains that it had to kill innocent people because they defended themselves when attacked.” Israeli officials have told the media that weapons had been found aboard the ships. Maybe they should present evidence of these weapons, unless we’re just to assume that the pipes and sharp pieces of metal used to defend against the raiders represent a significant threat to the Israeli military. Of course, since the ships are under control of the Israeli government, it probably wouldn’t be too hard for some government agents to plant a few crates of weapons on board. Israeli forces, unlike the Free Gaza flotilla, are thoroughly equipped with the latest in military hardware. We are not supposed to question the massive amount of military aid the United States Government gives to the Israeli government, because it’s not considered criminal when certain armed gangs attack civilians to keep control of their turf. One obvious bit of statist logic in the attempts to justify the Israeli attack is the “with us or against us” mindset. If you are not assisting the state expand its power, then you are an enemy, and you will be equated with all of the state’s rivals, whether they be Stalinists or Hamas. Those who acted against the interests of Israel’s ruling policy are automatically assigned to the same category as terrorists who fire rockets into cities. The logic of the state is the logic of control. When we look for consistency, we find only attempts to institute total control. The antithesis of the state is the true liberty, equality, and solidarity advocated by anarchists.

I remember one movie that caused a really heated debate on the WeTheLiving group was American Beauty.