self-defense, sir, and pre-emptive self-defense is a
legitimate purpose. . IMHO. -- j
.

The loudest statement he made, was 44 seconds of silence.

And what did America say about that ? Oh wait, they were not there, they had to take a phone call.

But SofS Kerry and the ambassador were both there for the Hamas representative speech.

I find no fault with the man yet, seems to be spot on so far.
As always, I remain observant and objective.

Spooky dude. A truly evil man.

meager*

typo

I don't consider myself an objectivist in any way, really. I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist who admires Rand for having committed to paper some (but not all) of the concepts that make up my moral compass (some by coincidence, some because things were clarified by the reading of her work).

I'd settle for obeying the Constitution (oh my would that be a step in the right direction), but the chances of that happening died in 1803 with Marbury, so I might as well wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which gets filled first.

It this very line of thinking that will forever prevent an Objectivist from becoming POTUS. We, as a people, in this world, with these concerns, cannot afford to be lead this way. The consequence of being wrong is too great. The reward for begin perfectly aligned too eager.

I've said before, I'm a Constitutional Conservative who admires Rand as a visionary.

We can agree on that. The link I shared wasn't the original one I had. Both though had their footnotes, which I can appreciate.

Racism was definatly close to being healed before he came along, we are now right back in the 1960's Disparate impact was along long before Obama, we have the "Guilty white folks" to thank for that, the African Americans among us have these same "Guilty white folks"to thank for the soft racism of lowered expectations inherent in "Disparate impact" and "Quotas". But why shouldn't they....most of the "guilty" are Democrats....that is the party of Racism, Jim Crow and the KKK! That right...thare warn't no Republicans in the south during the Jim Crow era...or much after the Civil War for that matter!

If we arbitrarily carve out exceptions to our "moral code", is it really a moral code any more, or more like a "ehhhhhh, things I think are neat"?

And that's what this is, right? An arbitrary carve-out. "This" (whatever this is) skeeves us out and so we casually disregard our principles without even (really) giving it a whole lot of thought or examination.

Even your responses (and I don't fault you, and please don't take this as an attack because it's not intended that way) basically come to down a tone of "why are we even discussing this, of COURSE we have to ignore the principles here".

Its a very complicated subject to be sure, and I sure am not an expert on it, nor really have the time to be. But I do think there is a lot that was hidden from us that resulted in this intense hatred thats developed in the middle east, which is a GOOD reason for the USA to stay out of the regional religious skirmished there.

Frankly, I don't care about consistency or a philosophical litmus test when it comes to nuclear weapons. You don't hand an enemy the tools needed to kill you or help him to acquire it.

You couldn't apologize enough, or take comfort in the consistency of your ideological alignment, should hundreds, thousand, or millions of people die because your principles defied reality.

Iran has medium and long range missiles and are being assisted by N. Korea, Russia, and (I believe) Pakistan. As of last week their enriched uranium cache miraculously got larger.

When it comes to nukes any American leader should selfishly err on the side of caution.

Racism was dead and buried until 0 revived it. Now his asinine "disparate impact" laws are imposing it on everybody, even while Common Core lies and says blacks can never be racist.

Soros.

Every time I read about the Iran deal, I think of a movie called "Seven Days In May". It involved a nuclear disarmament treaty with Soviet Russia, and had some very appropriate quotes:
“I think the signing of a nuclear disarmament pact with the Soviet Union is at best an act of naivete, and at worst an unsupportable negligence. We've stayed alive because we've built up an arsenal, and we've kept the peace because we've dealt with an enemy who knew we would use that arsenal. And now we're asked to believe that a piece of paper will take the place of missile sites and Polaris submarines, and that an enemy who hasn't honored one solemn treaty in the history of its existence will now, for our convenience, do precisely that. I have strong doubts, gentlemen."
"I'm suggesting, Senator, there hasn't been a single piece of paper written in the history of mankind that could serve as a deterrent to a Pearl Harbor. I sometimes wonder why we haven't learned that lesson by now. Every twenty years or so we have to pick ourselves up off the floor bleeding, and have to pay for that mistake. And I might add, Senator, those mistakes are delivered to us C.O.D. by peace-loving men. And bought and paid for with the lives of other men. Men in uniform.”
“Your course of action in the past year has bordered on criminal negligence. This treaty with the Russians is a violation of any concept of security. You're not a weak sister, Mister President, you're a criminally weak sister. And if you want to talk about your oath of office, I'm here to tell you face-to-face, President Lyman, that you violated that oath when you stripped this country of its muscles, when you deliberately played upon the fear and fatigue of the people, and told them they could remove that fear by the stroke of a pen. A year and nine months from now, I don't think there will be an electorate, let alone an election. I think we'll be sitting in our own rubble, a minimum of one hundred million dead. And on the gravestone we can carve, “They Died For President Lyman's Concept Of Peace”.”

It's not Obama I worry about so much. I worry about who is pulling his strings. I figure they are the same people who rigged the election.

"I don't...I do think we have the right to defend ourselves."

This is not self-defense. This is pre-emptive.

"Defending ourselves" would be responding to an attack, or reacting to a credible threat. This is neither of those things. It's rantings and ravings of a crazy person in the middle east with no current capacity to deliver on those ravings, and predictions for years down the road of what might happen. (Likely even, but that's not a current credible threat until that happens).

So again - it fails the litmus test.

EDIT: [Clarified my rantings and ravings phrase]

I don't...I do think we have the right to defend ourselves. This particular matter isn't a next door, or an across town neighbor, tinkering with a meth lab, its a hostile country with nuke capability and the tech to send it across the sea. Even intercepting it an air burst would do tremendous damage to the atmosphere, entire planet.

Keeping a weapon out of the hands of a madman who is ready and willing to use it isn't depriving him of defense anymore than keeping matches and a gas can from a known pyromaniac.

If we were going to think it an achievement that America "overcame" racism by electing Obama, all the libs and the guilty young white folks that voted for him should have gotten it....not Obama!

Absolutely. Spelll-binding. We need someone with his caliber leading America
instead of the Boy-Chic who daily disgraces
our WH.

But this time, there will be radioactivity warning signs up everywhere.

It would be like giving it to Obama. The Nobel prize means nothing anymore.

I read up on this subject heavily before I ever began writing commentary. The UN may have had an hand in the formation of Israel but the land was repeatedly surveyed even before the League of Nations. The British called the geographic area palestine - there never was a country called palestine nor a people called palestinians. Mark Twain in 1867 surveyed the land before writing Innocents Abroad.

Below is a link on the subject..It should be noted (before you say its pro-israeli) that Bernard Lewis, an acclaimed and noted Historian, speaks of some of these facts in the books I've read from him.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/d...

I never realized that it was the UN that created the state of Israel. Before that it was England who ran Palestine. It was a really fu%$ed up thing, where there were a LOT of jewish refugees leaving Europe because no country wanted to let them stay. So England went to the UN and got them to bless carving up Palestine to allow for the Jewish State Israel. It was a decision that really was never to work unless the jews and arabs could find a way to co-exist (not likely to happen).

Imagine if Obama carved up your house and moved in some syrian refugees into half of it. How would you feel about that. I suspect you would want them to leave ASAP, and you would hate Obama for what he did.

Not even sure where to begin on this one.