The Unfan

Boobs, you found something we agree on. Congratulations. Ron Paul is a total nut, and government is necessary to see that the infringement of rights is at least halfway regulated.

boo boo

If government didn't have control, corporations and religion would, and I'm sorry if I'm not one of the people who thinks that would be a wonderful utopia.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

gunnels

I feel rumbling beneath my feet....

__________________
Let's Play TF2 Sometime.|Unrepresentative Last.fm.|Puns, Pokemon, and Miscellany

anticipation

he's nothing special in terms of having a crazy political philosophy, especially compared to his fellow conservatives.

lucifer_sam

i actually had the opportunity to attend a lecture given by Ron Paul. he certainly isn't as crazy as people make him out to be, and his "radical" ideas are pretty much common sense for the most part. he's far from being a theocratic conservative, although he's "right wing" in the economic and political sense.

while i don't necessarily agree with his approach to economics (pure excise taxes would be atrocious for the working class), he's an intelligent and frank politician -- two qualities rarely seen anywhere in Washington. i'd much rather see him in office than any of those other, savvier political fucks. too bad he wasn't on the ballot in PA.

__________________
first.am

Son of JayJamJah

Ron Paul is far from crazy, thanks to Lucifer Sam for interjecting some reason. While it's certainly debatable that he is qualified to be the president, I like his ideas and common sense approach way better then any other candidate we've had this decade. Boo Boo, your opinion on him couldn't be any farther from the way I've experienced him listening to him speak, reading what he writes and reviewing his political record. Also Unfan agrees with you, the same Unfan who thinks it's a good idea to claim Led Zeppelin stole much of the music they made famous.

__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread

Inuzuka Skysword

You act as though "millions of deaths" is what one should be afraid of. If people sign up for the military, they are choosing to fight. There goes a piece of those "millions of deaths." Next we have the government that initiated force on us. Are you telling me that it would be smart to let them use force on us as if it was nothing? Where the hell is the logic in that? The only smart thing to do is use force back. When I mean use force, I don't mean that we should be playing "find the bad guys." I mean that those who seem to support that government should go down with it. America is too nice when it comes to war and that is where the casualties come from on our side. We should be shooting those who are an enemy in war, and that includes the civilians who pose a threat. The reason wars take to long is we try to be as careful as we can, thereby avoiding the fact that war is war and the enemy needs to be completely destroyed.

The end of minimum wage is good. The end of government guaranteed sanitary conditions in the workplace is good. The end of the suppression of child labor is great. The end of government hand-outs based upon health needs is excellent. I see no problem here.

Please, do explain how one can have a morality without a goal. Just one example and I will be happy. Also, expect me to find the goal that you will probably fail to mention.

I think that you basically just said, "What I want from reality is good, but it is also stupid because it isn't as great as what I want from reality."

What actually is? What is the one thing that will induce pleasure and pain in your life? Yourself.

Rand's philosophy is the ideal for living and enjoying this reality. That is because it allows man to like living, unlike the popular philosophies of this time. It is also based in logic in that she views that man's mind is the key to unlocking reality. As she says, "A=A." This represents that man can know what is beyond him in this objective reality. You are the one who claims that man cannot know parts of reality and that is infringing on this base point of logic. You say that an objective morality is not able to be found. That is saying that logic does not work in the case of morality. That is highly illogical because you deny logic's value in that sentence.

Secondly, you have no reason to believe that your selfish goals are wrong. Give me a good reason why one should believe such a thing.

bungalow

You do not know very much about war, do you?

Inuzuka Skysword

I do. I know that you all say that the wars create new enemies and such, but that is because the way the US approaches war is too humanitarian-influenced. The point is to reduce the threat to where it doesn't become much of a threat anymore. I guess wording it as "completely destroyed" was not very good, but that is what I mean.

I don't believe in bombing the hell out of every country in the world. I just think that countries which are threatening us and using force on us should have no mercy from us.

Your one-liners are greatly appreciated though. They tell me just how smart you are because the argument from intimidation is the best argument, isn't it?

bungalow

No, I'd be glad to have this discussion with you because you pretty clearly don't know what you're talking about on this one. It just doesn't take paragraphs and paragraphs to counter your claim, is all. The purpose of war is to achieve a political objective, it is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself. Wars of attrition (what you're suggesting) are wasteful, unnecessarily violent and generally ineffective. Those in command of the military know this, and that is why they don't engage in wars of attrition. You are playing armchair general and exposing a complete naivety to the purpose of war and the ways they should be effectively fought. Completely destroying your enemy does not end a war, achieving the political objective you sought to achieve in the first place, does. The problem with the current war is that there was never a decisive political objective and the war is essentially endless. My comment was directed at your assumption that destroying the enemy is an inherent objective of war--it isn't. That is an immature and naive understanding of the institution and it has caused countless problems for the United States both now and in the past. The United States decimated the Viet-Cong during the Vietnam war, but the North Vietnamese won that war because they achieved their political goals. It has nothing to do with destroying your enemy.