Mike82ARP

14 minutes ago, merjet said:

The subtitle of this WSJ article says, "Bryan Pagliano set up the server in the New York home of the then-secretary of state". If the server was set up while Hillary "Bobblehead" Clinton was Secretary of State, and she planned to use it for State Department communications, then she should have foreseen -- even if she didn't -- the significant risk of it containing classified information. When was she aware of the risk? Even if her awareness of such risk came later, what did she do or fail to do when she became aware? It reminds me of Watergate. What did Nixon Bobblehead know and when did he she know it?

Agreed. Her excuse of "none of the emails were classified is lame.  Anyone with a 3 digit IQ would realize information that was of a sensitive nature and act accordingly.  Her dismissive case might work with her followers who we know aren't all that bright, but won't fly with the rest of us.  

Through the years, I saw Rand's books in bookstores, but was never introduced to her until the first Atlas Shrugged film came out and the subsequent interest in her works vis a vis Obama's willful destruction of the economy.  I read AS as well as The Virtue of Selfishness, Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, The New Intellectual, etc. I found Rand's writing reflected much of my worldview with the exception of her atheism. I also found her critique of Christianity and altruism to contain straw man arguments and some of her metaphysics being a bit shallow. I read stuff from Peikoff and Kelley and watched numerous YT videos from ARI and TAS.  I like Kelley and his open objectivism view.  I think Peikoff is a douche bag. I enjoy Yaron Brooks talks on economic issues. 

At the time I found Rand's stuff, I was teaching biology and chemistry in a Christian high school and found that the students lacked an ability to think critically.  I went to the principal and proposed a new class for the religion requirement. She approved. it. The class covered critical thinking, logic and some basic philosophical concepts and characters.  The class was very popular. I had more students enrolled for that class than the other two classes that were offered and to this date still hear from students, now in college, that the stuff they learned was helpful in their classes.  

The first day of class, we would read and discuss Rand's speech at West Point, Philosophy: Who Needs It?.  The remainder of the year we covered other topics.  

3 hours ago, Selene said:

January 20th, 2017...

I don't think Cankles will be sleeping too well.  Pagliano had a reason for initially taking the 5th despite what her spin doctors claim.

1 hour ago, Selene said:

Mikee:

These projected November match up "polls" are completely meaningless at this juncture.

Pay no attention to them.

A...

 

I generally don't take the polls seriously, especially at this time.  One good sign is the turnout for the Democrat primaries has been low reflecting a lack of excitement in the their candidates, even Evita.

At this time, I don't see Rubio as getting the nomination regardless what machinations he expects to pull off.  He's young and it would appear he's already been issued marching orders from the Republican establishment. Expect more of the same from Marco. 

Regardless who gets the Republican nomination, I think the likely VP choice would be Kasich. Even though he probably won't get the nomination, RealClear politics has him beating Evita by the greatest margin.  Strange.   Anyway, Kasich is a likable guy and capturing Ohio will be critical in the general election.  

21 hours ago, anthony said:

Mike I see I was kinda scattered there and will try to correct, and I warn you it may take a while...

I assume we are on the subject of romantic love? Not simply trust for a friend or business associate?  ...

The striking parallel to objectivist methodology occurred to me later. Similarly, my friend's 'system' also takes a sensory - perceptual - conceptual approach. Hierarchical, iow. There are one's hierarchies of both knowledge and values, beginning with 'animal' physicality and growing and integrating more knowledge about the loved one, befitting a full "rational animal". In there is the essential process of induction of the huge number of 'clues' an observant and caring individual accumulates about his loved one. These are inferences one picks up with intimate experience (as much from what a loved one does NOT do  - as for what she does do and say, in a multitude of situations). Unevasively assessing the consistency of her acts compared with what she professes and explicitly stands for, should provide the objective evidence you asked for about forming (earned) trust, I think.

(And the highest "concept" one forms of one's partner (of the "spirit" of her), can instantly be deduced back to the physical actuality she always is).

Excuse the drift, one thing always leads to another and you asked interesting questions.

I get your point.  Love is a strange thing. My wife and I got engaged after 6 weeks of dating and married 2 1/2 months later.  That was 36 years ago and we remain very close.  My initial inquiry was as to whether we can "know" things. Not objective or tangible things like math, weight, etc., but those things that aren't objectively determined. Then  what degree of knowledge is required for us to act?

To get away from emotion examples, let's say you're driving to work and drive through an several intersections while the light is green.  How can you "know" the drivers on the cross street have stopped for the red light so you don't get broadsided and injured or killed?  While you may be able to "trust" the traffic lights are functioning correctly since the municipality tends to manage the traffic light's function, you can't say that about the drivers since you don't know them and can't vouch for their being sober, that they are paying attention to the traffic lights, or even that their vehicle's brakes are working properly.  Yet you drive through the intersection day after day.  Your action would not be based under "trust" as you or I would define it.  So, is this a case where we act by exercising "faith"?  

6 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

To protect the herd from people like you.

--Brant

and to keep the herd together: religion is the sheep dog, Mr. Wolf

Brant, since I don't know you and your writing style that well, I can't interpret your comment.  Whose herd?  "people like me"?   

On February 27, 2015 at 1:45 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Why is there religion??? It goes against rationality. It collides with fact. It causes otherwise normal people to be and do the dreadful. But it has always been with mankind, ever since when, most likely even before our race settled down and operated in agricultural mode.

It has existed in every kith, kin and tribe. In every language, culture and nation. It defies reason, yet it persists.

Why?????

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why is there religion?  I'd say religion resulted from man using his faculties of reason and rationale.  Presuming an evolutionary emergence of man and intelligence, man observed the world around him including things like cause and effect, e.g., lightning hits a tree and the tree bursts into fire, he bangs his finger and experiences pain, etc.  He also observes the world around him and sees trees, plants, animals, etc., and reasons that the existence of himself and the world must have had a cause, but what/who caused it?  Given the design of the world around him, e.g., the way plants grow and feed man and animal, the weather, the seasons, etc., would point to purpose. The use of reason would have him to posit the possibility that a mind or some intelligence was involved. But who/what is that mind?  

Reason would also have to posit the possibility of an uncaused first cause to avoid a reduction problem. Aristotle saw the necessity of the Prime Mover, but limited the attributes to that of a metaphysical explanation to the existence of the universe. Primitive animists held to a view of an immaterial aspect of man's and other creature's existence, i.e., the soul.

Not all religions teach of an afterlife, as Zanton implies.  So, that can't be the reason.

So, the what/why of the surrounding world prompts further thought into this arena.  If there is a prime mover, who might that be?  Is it  person or an impersonal force?  If it is a person of some sort, would it reveal itself and how would it do that?  Positing there was a prime mover that created the universe, then what was its purpose for doing so?  Given man is the only creature with the ability to reason in depth, why do we have this faculty?  What was the prime mover's purpose in granting man the ability to reason? Does he/it want a relationship with man?  Are we accountable in any way?  And so on.  

These are reasonable questions and answering them requires thought. Numerous theological treatises, flawed as they may be, continue to be studied and developed by intelligent people.  

I think that answers the thoughtful question,"Why is there religion" posed by Ba'al.

Thanks for that info.  If Evita doesn't win, I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama giving her the ultimate f-u a d leave her to whoever the next AG will be.   

This whole email scandal pisses my off to no end.  The stupidity (willful?) of the lame stream media and even non-fans over at Fox News is astounding.

Here's my thoughts as one who handled classified materials when I was in the Army. For those vets, for a time I worked as my battalion's S2 (intelligence dept) NCO and was required to have a top secret security clearance for that position.

Evita (I like that name) claims that none of the emails were classified and there shouldn't be any problem with them being on her personal email server.  She's a pathological liar and disingenuous to the core.   So, let's assume they weren't "officially classified" when she received and forwarded them or whatever she did with those emails.  Any person with a 3 digit IQ would recognize sensitive information that should be classifieds and take steps to insure their privacy and protection.  An example: Say you get a bunch of emails about a guy named Joe Smith. One email notes what he had for dinner last night. Another, where he gets his hair cut. Another one comes in with Joe's social security number and last 5 years' tax returns.  A reasonable person would think, "this latest email is sensitive stuff and shouldn't be sent this way".  Why hasn't this scenario been posed by the media?   Evita lies like a dog, but surely has the intelligence to realize what type of information requires classification and should have taken the steps to protect it.  

Sorry for the rant.

And Moralist is probably right about the pardon. But I think someone has to be convicted or at least indicted before pardon can be issued.

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Trust as a close corollary to faith? I don't see that, but I realise many think so. Trust is or should be reality based, on what you know, not arbitrary. Though that doesn't mean it is risk free.

Trust is the confidence to get on a small boat to take you to the other side. Faith is believing you don't need a boat ...

A "dedicated O'ist" might answer that honesty and integrity tops most considerations in the character of those people close to him. Without omniscience one can never know for certain, and individuals can change, so I think it's wrong to elevate any person to some ideal of endless, trustworthy 'perfection'. However, from early on, an other's honesty (and deceit too) will show itself to an equally honest person. (The easiest man to con is a con artist, and the hardest an honest man, they say). One's many small evasions in not wanting to truly note the flaws in someone else's character is usually the start of a distrusting relationship. So trust has to be important to any rational person. He/she looks to the long term and values his self-confidence, which doubt and distrust in a significant other will diminish. 

Hi Tony:  Thanks for your comments.  I get your point about trust and honesty.  Why I compare trust and faith is that both entail a degree of uncertainty yet they are acted upon.  

So, I wonder what degree of evidence, e.g., behavior, observation, reason, etc., is necessary to form that trust?  Is it the case that the levels or types of evidence necessary are subjective or objective, or is it really a fool's errand to make that determination?

I'm kinda in the same camp, Greg.  I find some of Rand's metaphysics unconvincing and have the same opinion as you do of AS and some of the other implications in the book..  I'm surprised some of the more dedicated O-ists haven't chimed in.  I'm sure they have someone they believe loves them, but what do they place their beliefs on?  You mentioned trust on your earlier email, but trust is a close corollary to faith, and that's a big no-no for the fundamentalist O-ist.    

1 hour ago, moralist said:

I'll answer your thought provoking question... and only for myself.

No, I don't know my wife loves me... but I trust she does.

Relationships are built upon trust.

Love is a byproduct of trust.

 

Greg

Thanks for the response.  Since I'm not an Objectivist maven, but a novice, I don't know where "trust" fits in with the Objectivist philosophy.  Trust seems to me to be a subjective opinion.  Can you be sure your "trust" is not misplaced using the same ulterior motive scenario?   History is replete with betrayals. Or doesn't it matter?   I'm not trying to be  jerk. I always look for holes in my thought. I hat ego be wrong, so if I am I appreciate being informed.

On March 11, 2015 at 0:44 PM, moralist said:

No.

You can believe there is no God, just as you can believe God exists. I regard both as being religions.

One is religion in the classical sense, while the other is secular leftist political religion. Politics is the foundation of secularism because government is god. Secular leftism is the fastest growing most powerful religion in the world. This is evidenced by the malignant growth of government all over the world... which is caused by a massive failure of people to properly live their own lives by decent values.

You can know God... but that is only through a real life personal experience of the reality of the Utterly Objective, which is not transferrable to others. In that experience each person is totally free to accept it or to deny it...

...for there is nothing more sacred than the power to choose.

Greg

Moralist bring up an interesting point here: " is only through a real life personal experience of the reality of the Utterly Objective, which is not transferrable to others."  The question I would like to add is, "Can you "know" that your spouse loves you?"   I assume for many of you love is an important part of your life.   As far as I know, there is no objective test that indicates real "love" versus fake "love".  How can one know that their spouse isn't just acting like they love you for some ulterior motive?  From my readings, it appeared that Ayn and Frank loved each other despite Rand's goings-on with Branden, but how could she "know" ( certainty implied) that Frank loved her?  

Brant. You were a S.F. medic IIRC.  I keep in touch with ] old buddies and Army stuff since I was teaching high school until retiring a year ago.  You know what they are giving out for reenlistment bonuses for SF medics?  About $75K.  A recruiter friend just gave a $25K enlistment bonus to a enlisted man Intelligence Analyst.  Decent bucks, IMO.

Do you attend the annual SF veteran meetings?  

The 101st don't jump anymore and not since was in. They are air mobile (helicopter-borne).  The big pay raise happened shortly after I got out when Reagan was elected.  Today, the military pays nearly what equivalent civilian jobs do (assuming you're married and getting housing allowance, etc).  I would have jumped whether I got paid for it or not.  

FWIW, I had the honor, and I mean honor, to serve under William B Caldwell, now retired Lt General.  I was his RTO when he just got out of Westpoint and was assigned to the 82nd as a cherry 2LT platoon leader.  He was a fine officer who knew he'd learn more listening to his senior NCOs than being a know-it-all a$$ wipe.  

1 hour ago, Selene said:

Mike:

A cynic is a humanist with experience.

A...

I'm not sure whether that's a good or bad thing here.

I was in during the mid 70s. Jump pay was still $55/mo, but that was about 10-15% added onto your base pay.  Not a bad deal then and it was actually a higher percentage added onto your pay than what the Army pays now at $150/mo.    Another plus being in the 82nd was that the airborne troops were a big cut above the leg infantry units. Brant, coming from S.F. group should appreciate that.

20 hours ago, Selene said:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/turmoil_at_mu/university-of-missouri-curators-vote-to-fire-melissa-click/article_4b0ae653-2d61-5f3f-9ede-a129d12f0fd1.html

Not to worry. Click is now a celeb and will be hired by another, more pukingly liberal university and get twice the salary she previously had.  Sorry for my cynicism, but it has served me well through the years.

I got to love our Sheriff Ivey.  Being a former LEO (wife too) getting a CCW was pretty easy.   Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/07/florida-sheriff-asks-concealed-carry-holders-take-terrorists/

Looks like it. Doesn't it? Nope, Sicily DZ.  Probably supervising a parachute recovery detail or something.

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I want to recommend a book.

I'm halfway through it, so some of the things I say right now might change when I finish. I doubt it but I still have to make room for the possibility until I finish reading the book.

The Soul of Atlas: Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground by Mark David Henderson.

Hi Michael:  Thanks for the recommendation. I read that book a couple years ago.  It is very poignant. While the two positions will likely never be reconciled, there is enough common ground for the two positions to be allies against the nihilist progressives who seek to destroy initiative and excellence and make man subject to the state.  

Thanks you for your service, Brant.    I spent 4 years at Bragg. E5, 1/508 Inf, 82nd Abn

On February 16, 2014 at 9:37 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

I was referring to times past. At present only Orthodox Jews (a minority of a minority) believe in the Chosen People nonsense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are correct on this.  The same applies to Christianity. There are few things the different denominations agree upon.  I belong to a presbyterian denomination.  There are over 40 different presbyterian denominations in the U.S., each with differing governing bodies and ecclesiastical practices.  Sadly, many non-religious groups take example from the fringe and use that as an example to critique, hence engage in a straw man argument.

On February 11, 2014 at 8:26 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

In addition Christianity is poisoned by the concept of Original Sin. That pernicious meme colors ALL of Christianity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Again, you have a misunderstanding.  "Original Sin" is not a universal doctrine in the Christian church. It is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church and maybe the Lutherans, but that's about it.  The majority of Christian churches teach that man has a selfish and rebellious nature.  Anyone who has had children knows this.