About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 11:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If I’m "discrediting" the anti-interventionist movement by calling for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, then so are Zbigniew Brzezinksi and Brent Scowcroft who are calling for the same thing.
 
As for those Israeli art students,
Fox News and Salon, among others – including Die Zeit, a respected German weekly – originated the story. I merely report, and let my readers decide. Not that you care about the truth: a lying weasel like yourself only cares about sliming people. This has nothing to do with "Jews" – it has to do with the nation of Israel, and what its government knew about 9/11 and neglected to tell us.
 
By the way, what exactly was that "much more unsavory career choice" I supposedly took up before Antiwar.com? Whatever it was, at least I didn’t become a professional bootlicker for the Washington power elite. Why don’t you go hook up with your buddy Jeff Gannon, Tom? You two seem to have a LOT in common.


Post 41

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 11:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lindsay: Fair enough. But I don't recall bringing up anything that could even be remotely considered of a sexual nature. I'll leave the slime to Palmer, who seems to be doing a pretty good impression of my old maiden aunt.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 11:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, let it just be noted that Mr. Raimondo raised issues of sexuality in his initial posting, as he has elsewhere. He noted above "I don't recall bringing up anything that could even be remotely considered of a sexual nature."  Check out his initial post, which raises such matters.   It's distasteful, but necessary to point out that he will raise any issue, do anything, slander or smear anyone, in order to get attention.  There is nothing he won't bring up if he thinks it will get off a cheap shot; note that he even mocks Mr. Bissell for his hair: "You already have the haircut, or a rough approximation."  Is that supposed to be an argument?
(Edited by Tom G. Palmer on 3/06, 11:44pm)


Post 43

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 11:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Raimondo says: "Why don’t you go hook up with your buddy Jeff Gannon, Tom? You two seem to have a LOT in common."

Two sentences later, he says: "But I don't recall bringing up anything that could even be remotely considered of a sexual nature."

For those of you who don't know, Jeff Gannon is a gay blogger whose past was dig up by vicious leftists (after he got a one-day press-pass to the White House) claiming that he is a member of various gay porn sites and that he may have been a gay prostitute. That's the vicious, despicable nature of the slur.

Has Justin reached that mental state where one is no longer aware of what he's doing? Or can't he keep a lie till the next sentence??!!!


Post 44

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Your scurrilous "article", which was posted on this site by Mouhibian, was filled with your prissy denunciations of alleged "sexual" postings on your boring website, which you claim were made by me. But they weren't made by me, as I had long been banned from commenting on your site -- soon after answering your initial smears. If you insist on whiing about how everyone is persecuting you on account of your sexual "orientation," then don't be surprised if you attract rude comments. But they weren't from me, and why you're obsessing about that -- and about me in particular -- is a mystery I'd rather not know the answer to.

It's interesting that you are now finding allies among the Objectivists -- who are vehemently pro-war, and even (in the case of Peikoff, Onkar Ghate, and Yaron Brook) advocate killing innocent civilians and even nuking all Arab countries in the Middle East (that's Ghate).

As for little Andy Bissell's haircut: I'm sick of laptop bombardiers like him tellijng us how "good" the Iraq war is, when kids his age are being killed for no good reason and he's here cheerleading the slaughter. Go volunteer, Andy: live by your own convictions. Or, in plain language: put up or shut up.


Post 45

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And I see little Alex is a tender 19-year-old -- so what's stopping YOU from signing up? Flat feet?

Post 46

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Tom I'm very glad that you've joined us. and I thank you for your valuable posts. I hope you'll stay around.

Robert, I agree with you that a "person’s response to these creeps [is] a basic moral litmus test.: "

There is no doubt in my mind that Ayn Rand would be on the side of America in the dispute over the Iraq war; that she would wholeheartedly agree with Bush that we must deal with terrorists on their turf, not on ours. Yes, she originally opposed our entering the war against Germany -- but not after we were attacked. She would have realized that 9/11 was the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, and a reason to pursue terrorists to the ends of the earth.

Barbara




Post 47

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
On Justin's "laptop liberator" slurs, see an excellent piece by Christopher Hitchens at http://slate.msn.com/id/2073772/


Post 48

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, Alec, you’re wrong about Jeff Gannon being a martyr to sexual "diversity" – and yes, he was a male prostitute, and didn’t even take down his website advertising his "services" after the scandal broke. He was featured on such websites as militaryescort.com – a site that combined gay "liberation" with "pro-American" politics of the sort that I’m sure our friend Tom Palmer would find much more patriotic than the "anti-American" stuff at Antiwar.com. Read all about it here.
 
I see that Ms. Branden has come down from Olympus long enough to inform us that her channeling of Ayn Rand tells her that Rand would have been "on America's side" in the invasion of Iraq -- an invasion, to be sure, that had nothing to do with 9/11, and was in reality a diversion away from the fight against the perpetrators of that horrific act, as Michael Scheuer and others have pointed out.
 
Since Rand opposed the Vietnam war, and also opposed WWII, is it really that much of a leap to posit that she would have opposed this war for "democratic" altruism and the selfless sacrifice of American lives to make Iraq safe for a Shi'ite theocracy?
 
Oh, but I forgot: you refuse to discuss anything with me, because ... (check one or more)
 
1) You don't know a blessed thing about foreign policy.
 
2) You're an expert at utilizing the Argument from Intimidation.
 
3) You're no different than the wackos over at ARI, who not only support this odious war, but howl for a nuclear attack on every Arab country in the Middle East and celebrate attacks on innocent Iraqi civilians.
 
 


Post 49

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Justin, all I claimed was that you were hurling an ugly sexual slur at Palmer. The fact that Gannon was a prostitute is the proof of my point.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK—I've seen enough. Justin is banned. Not because debate is not allowed—as anyone who's been here more than 5 seconds knows, it *is* allowed, & it rages, often—but because Justin has introduced an element of ad hominem viciousness that I am not prepared to tolerate. Neither is Joe, with whom I've just conferred. Justin has exposed the nature of Saddamy in an unmistakable way.

So yes, another banning by the monsters who run SOLOHQ. Worse, I don't apologise for it.

I add one more thing. I'm as pissed off with the fork-tongued hypocrites who chide me for referring to "Saddamites"—when I have defined the term & validated it empirically—as I am with Justin. You are as bad as he. As bad as the Saddamites, because you piss around with weasel words instead of calling the Saddamites what they are. Think on that.

In fact, you're worse than Justin, because he at least states his position unambiguously & unapologetically.

Linz

"The world is perishing from an orgy of weasel words."



Post 51

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

You came through just as I predicted to myself that you would. I knew it was only a matter of time -- minutes, as it happens -- before you could no longer tolerate this trash.

Good on you, and Joe, for making the right decision.

Alec


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Good on you, Linz and Joe.

 

Bissell, Palmer, Yushchenko, Gannon, and now the amicable Branden? There was no end in sight for his rompish smears.

 

Also, I’m fed up with the nincompoops and their armchair-patriot mummery. I’m as much for the invasion of Iraq as I am for a solid justice system. Why is it then that I’m not criticized for not being a judge?

 

But let Justin not doubt it, if it comes down to my country needing me (as I have depended on it), I will be on the front and final line of battle. Who knows, I might even get to meet him face to face.

 
Garin

(Edited by Garin Hovannisian on 3/07, 1:38am)


Post 53

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Would folk mind not posting in these stupid small fonts? Garin, take pity on an ageing blind man!! :-)

Post 54

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you Linz and Joe.

If Raimondo thinks Barbara is a wacko, what the hell is he doing over here anyway?

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 3:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank, you Barbara, you answered my question (from post #20).
Yes, she [Rand] originally opposed our entering the war against Germany -- but not after we were attacked. She would have realized that 9/11 was the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, and a reason to pursue terrorists to the ends of the earth.

Before Pearl Harbor, opposition to our entry to WWII was common. The many people here who point out that Rand had opposed going to war, left it without context, time stamp, or other qualification. It's interesting that you write that she didn't oppose going to war with Germany - Germany didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor. There were still some people who wanted us to fight Japan first instead of Germany. Is there anything in her published writings on this matter?


Post 56

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 5:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I was going to chime in against the nastiness of Justin, but I see Lindsay has trumped me by banning him. A wise decision Lindsay, and I want to thank you and Joe again for sparing us from Mr Raimondo's filth and providing an excellent site.

I know some, escpecially at other sites, will wail about this banning being another sign of intolerant SOLO and will also wail that posts such as mine noting the justice of the banning are more SOLO cliqueish lap-dogging. Such is life. I'd wear those comments as a badge of honor, considering their usual sources.

Ethan


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 57

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In regards to World War II, both Japan and Germany declared War on the USA, and I think that at that point Rand would have supported our defense against them.  Prior to that, the USA was using peaceful means to oppose these regimes by supporting Britain and cutting off resources to Japan in an effort to curb their aggression without resorting to war.  Note that the anti-war people claim that these sanctions of the era were the same as our actually declaring war!  Rand was correct to criticize the propaganda efforts to make the Russians look good to the American people (see the transcripts of her testimony to congress).  However, the actual aid was, in fact, crucial to winning the war. 

 

What seems to be lost is the fact that in 50 years the USA has succeeded in eliminating the following evils from the world by means an interventionist stance in the world:

 

Fascism – eliminated in 1945, converted to our allies and economic partners.

Communism – largely eliminated bloodlessly in 1990, co-opted slowly but surely into economic partnership.

 

Can anyone tell me this happens barring an interventionist USA?  No.  It makes the USA safer, it makes the USA richer, it makes 1/2 of the world’s people richer and safer. 

 

The era of Great Power war (and its multi-millions dead) is over.  The era of National wars is over (i.e. our intervention in Iraq, Kosovo, etc.) and now all that is left is individual actors, rogue states and taming the rest of the world that refuses to join the modern world.

 

These so-called Libertarians support this enslavement of so many people?  Oh, they say they don’t, but their actions and words impede any attempts to make changes there!  Change cannot happen there without outside help, because it is the goal of these tyrants and their ilk to keep their people under tight control and incapable of making change.  We cannot ignore them, either, because these places are breeding grounds of terrorism.  We have no choice but to intervene for our own self-interest, and we will make the world a better place in doing so.

 

Once again – no USA intervention and the world remains, at best, locked in a 3-way struggle between the Anglo-sphere (assuming we survive), the Fascist states, and the Communist states.  This is not a safe or better world, this is a nightmare world of horrific proportions.

 

 

 


Post 58

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
SOLOng, Justin.

--SOLOhq


Post 59

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason, Kurt answered your question for me. Germany didn't attack us, but did declare war against us; that ended Rand's opposition to America entering the war.

I think I ought to say, on the subject of Rand's attitude to war, that she seemed at times to have mixed feelings about the Viet Nam war. When pinned down with a specific question, however, she would say she opposed it.

Ir's relevant to this whole discussion that she was passionately opposed to most of the people supposedly on her side, that is, to most of the people who also opposed our actions in Viet Nam. And for much the same reasons as many people today who oppose the war in Iraq are passionately opposed to people like Justin Raimondo and Lew Rockwell. To the extent that antiwar people object to it because they would object to anything America does, they are not on the same side as people like Chris and Tibor. They are very different human beings, with different values and different goals.

Barbara

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.