"Chameleon" caused me to think of a character in a movie I saw waaay before someone thought up the acronym RINO~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emc1M...

Well said.

I'd like to see the republicans act like an Allosaur and well you know the rest ... But they act like a chameleon and blend into nothingness.

I have no "hate" except for intolerance.

And you are showing your intolerance for millions of peaceful Americans just because they happen to worship a different faith that you're not a fan of.

but people who believe in it are just so anti-western things it makes me nervous to be around them

You've clearly never met any of the millions of Muslims in the US who are perfectly "westernized" and happily living the American dream.

"I sure as hell would prefer to live under Christianity in the US in 2016 than under islam in iran in 2016" [emphasis added by me]
In a country that respects people's freedom and doesn't have an established religion you with with religious people, not under them.

So why not free up the citizens to arm themselves how ever they want since the war is a war against all citizens of the USA and the world. Hoping a little that those who arm themselves take a little time to get a little practice with whatever weapon so not too many of the militia shoot their own legs or cut themselves. Seems like some open carry people try to holster their weapons with a finger on the trigger and shoot themselves. That is about all a well regulated militia needs.
Those who are not good with their weapons will soon be taken care of by being outnumbered.

As a point of information so people don't get too upset with this change, the following might be of interest. Last Friday I admitted 60 new citizens from 26 countries. Not a single one requested the changed language. I have performed naturalization ceremonies numerous times and I have always been uncomfortable with the standard language which, to me, serves as a reminder of the selective service system which I oppose. However, the language simply parrots the existing law so no additional obligation is being foisted upon the new citizens. In a way it's sort of a warning that the draft can be activated at any time. In that sense it's a full disclosure to the naturalized citizen that he is not entering a completely free society.

I agree, oaths are not worth a lot. They are the justification for punishment and thats all.

It seems to me that the idea of a NATO really benefits the smaller country in that its supposed to deter other larger countries from attacking it. BUT, if the larger country attacks it anyway, Its kind of stupid for us to get into a war we dont have to just to protect the smaller "ally". Good point is Israel. what on earth do we have to gain by warring with the arabs or russia over israel ? It was set up by the british with UN approval and carved out of arab land ( no wonder they are pissed off). Its been 60+ years now, and the Israelis cant get along with the arabs. Why are we sucked into this quagmire?

Its another subject, but what the hell did the Jews do to be hated so much all throughout europe and now the middle east?? I personally have no issues with Jews, but they are definitely hated very strongly. I just wonder why.

What is an oath but a means for the government to have a person give it permission to punish him when it believes he has offended it in some way. An oath in no way is a way of protecting the USA or the Constitution for that matter. An required oath just causes some people to be loose a little integrity by finding a necessity to be dishonest with a little lie. I don't recall if I had to take an oath for the year of mandatory ROTC I had at university of WI, but the oaths for being a witness in court did not go well when I replied no to the religious one. I thought I might be jailed but the judge told the clerk to go find the secular oath which had good stuff about the pains of perjury which the religious one did not have. For becoming a juror, I asked for the secular oath after turning down the religious one. Again they had to go search for the secular oath. After getting picked for a jury, I gave up due to how upset people were and just said yes to the religious one. That did not end it, in the jury room I had a comment of "I heard what you did out there" from a guy who was discussing the bible with another juror. I thought that about 8% or the people were a-religious, but apparently not here in Wisconsin.
My solution for oaths would be to have both kinds read and the judge instruction the oath takers to mentally take the one that you are comfortable with by saying yes, and as I have been told that oaths are just a formality or tradition to make some people feel comfortable, and so have been told to just say yes to get it over with and not rock the boat.

+1

I agree that the notion of defense has become perverted. I'm not denying that whatsoever. To me, defense is exactly that: an assault upon the US and its territorial waters. I think one can certainly make the case that 9/11 was such a case, even though the prosecution of the war took us to foreign lands.

If we are requested by an ally to come to their aid and we decide it is in our best interest, I think that is a separate situation entirely, as in the case of Kuwait. In such cases, we should be treated as mercenaries similar to the Flying Tigers of WW II in China. Those who participated were there out of choice rather than conscription.

In the case of a direct attack upon an ally where we have already signed a mutual defense pact (see NATO), those nations are treated as if an attack upon them is in fact an attack upon American soil. By signing such a serious treaty (which I believe are over-used), we have acknowledged that the welfare of our partner is one and the same as our own and that we will fight to protect it. In such cases, obligation persists.

That being said, your notation of Vietnam is an interesting case of the second being completely misused by politicians, and we are rightly to question not only conscription but the entire prosecution of that war.

Murder by definition is an unwarranted death perpetrated upon the innocent. Now you are welcome to disagree with the terms of the law, but if one is guilty of a crime before a court of law, we aren't talking about murder at all, but corporal punishment. You can argue that in your opinion the crime doesn't warrant such punishment, but as all this happened about 4000 years ago, I'd suggest that you take your argument up with God, because nobody else is really concerned about it in today's world.

Islam to this day practices stoning for a variety of crimes which include conversion from Islam, adultery, homosexuality, and others. Neither Christianity nor Jewry follow such traditions and you know this to be true. That I differentiate Islam from every other religion is as a result of the difference in principles between it and every other religion I have studied. There is no other willing to practice coercion to the degree Islam has or continues to. And I appreciate your labeling me as Islamophobic given your penchant for the use of opposite definitions.

I was around when there was the draft, forcing people to fight in vietnam. Part of my unease with this clause is that the Vietnam war was an abortion- it wasnt for our defense as no one was attacking us. It seemed to be a military industrial complex crony thing to make suppliers wealthy at the expense of our soldiers and taxpayers- yet it was "voted" by our lawmakers. I thought then it was slavery, and I think so now.

Want to go to Afghanistan and fight for the US there cause Obama says so??

I read the question very differently. You see only compulsion. I see in the willful act of joining to and being part of a community the accepted responsibility to defend that community. If I do not, I am seeking only to gain the privileges of such an association without any effort or value provided in exchange. I see this as the quintessential extension of the looter mentality.

As an Objectivist I don't necessarily agree with that. What if the nation decides to destroy itself from within? Am I expected to stand and fight? Because, I'm not.

If that's the way you read it I can understand your conclusion.

I read it very differently, thus:
Given that I am a citizen of my nation and that I have a responsibility to defend myself and my family, I may be called upon by civil authorities in pursuance of a joint defense. My refusal to do so constitutes a disregard not only for the safety of myself and my family, but for the community and nation to whom I have proclaimed my allegiance. Thus my refusal constitutes a breach of allegiance and that which once was my community but which I have so foresworn similarly offers me no guarantees of protection.

Yes, Islam does practice such things. And have for centuries.

"Just as some radicalized factions of Christianity kill folks who don't agree with them."

I would first challenge you to name one. Then I would challenge you to substantiate where in Christ's words that authorization comes from. You won't find it there any more than you will find it in Hindu, Buddhism, or even Wicca. Islam is a religion completely separate and apart from all others. Your continued attempts of fallacy by association are the arguments of the irrational bigot - not the Objectivist. If I were investigating Objectivism and read your words, I'd conclude that you are as much a hypocrite of your profession as the common Christian.

"Maybe you missed the whole Crusades"

Fortunately, I did miss them. But I've read history. The Crusades were a response to Muslim invasion into the Middle East and their threats to the Mediterranean. Were it not for the Crusades, the entirely of Europe would have been overrun by Muslims more than 1000 years ago. There would be no Renaissance and no recognition of natural rights. There would be no America and no Constitution. There would be no Objectivists. For someone who professes such depths of knowledge, your ignorance is astounding.

And again, I would direct you point out to me the specific place in the Bible where Christ instructs his followers that murder is acceptable. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but is a Christian one who claims it, or one who actually lives what he/she believes? If I call myself an Objectivist yet laud the welfare system, am I really an Objectivist? If I call myself an Objectivist yet go around intentionally spreading lies, am I really devoted to the Reality I claim to venerate?

Were there acts in history performed "in the name of Christianity" which belied those very teachings? Absolutely. No one has ever denied that. What is denied clearly and firmly is the assertion that these acts were Christian acts: acts that Christ himself - the Founder of Christianity - would have perpetrated. With Islam, we have on record the actual acts of Mohammed, which included everything from rape and pillage to murder to forced conversion. And yet because of your hate for all things you deem "religious", you attempt to openly assert that there is no difference between the two.

You need to let go of your hatred. You are on the path to the dark side yet you tell yourself that only others are wrong. Put aside the hate. If you want to demonstrate how logic wins the day, it won't be done with bald-faced lies and false comparisons. A position's merit speaks for itself.