caroljane

I didn't think it was so hot. -Mitt Romney Attorney Harvard Law grad

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health." They're according to my metaphysical value judgements. And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical? It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence. So it is logical to calculate the probable length of your existence, and decide you would prefer it a bit shorter? As you have already said you would rather die than go on welfare, I presume the answer is yes. Being logical merely consists of accepting the law of causality (a thing is itself) as an absolute; and the law of causality is a corollary of the laws of logic: a thing is itself, contradictions cannot exist, either-or. See my earlier post to see how all contradictions, in order to be contradictions, always require that a thing not be itself (which IS the contradiction). I am logical as I accept the law of causality and the laws of logic as absolutes. I do not evade that a cigarrette is itself, that its contents are harmful to my health and that the consequences of smoking (cancer, heart problems, etc) are what they are. I am logical in chosing death when my only alternative is welfare, not because of my choice, but because I recognize that death is death (and all that it presupposes) and welfare is welfare (and all that it presupposes: violating others rights by robbery with a government gun). Does this make sense? S No.

I'm with you, Brant. Actually the Brits are not that upset. And maybe the Prince should have been the surprise Dirty Harry at the convention.

Don't you think Donald Trump would have been a better choice to talk to the empty chair than Clint Eastwood. DT could have made good (scripted) points about Obama's performance and then fired him. (There were rumours that he was originally scheduled to fire an Obama impersonator)rHe would have stayed on message and been very funny. Not that I am sorry the Combover King lost a great gig, mind you.

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health." They're according to my metaphysical value judgements. And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical? It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence. So it is logical to calculate the probable length of your existence, and decide you would prefer it a bit shorter? As you have already said you would rather die than go on welfare, I presume the answer is yes.

I dunno, hard to believe that weren't times when Johann S , wrestling his latest composition from the drooling maws of the rugrats, wistfully thought that only 12 or 13 might have been nice. There is a good story I like about Bach. One of his (many, many) sons was up late practising a new piece over and over on the harpsichord. He kept practising and practising up to the climactic resolution of the counterpoint, but stopping before the end, and going back to practise the whole piece again from the first. The music woke Bach up. Finally the son stopped, before the end of the piece again, and went to bed. Bach couldnb't stand it. He got up and marched downstairs and played the final notes at thunderous volume, and then returned to bed.

I joined OL on New Years Eve. That's all I'm saying. So far it is not like being in the movie where you wake up in Las Vegas married to a stranger. Not always,

Adam, I was just being amateur political analyst here. Personally I thought Ann was fine and effective.She seems like a good person and as a woman I can connect. I had a dear cousin who died of MS at age 41, and a dear aunt who survived agonizing breast cancer treatment, so I still have her. And I brought up two boys, the thought of bringing up five of them fills me with admiration. If I were an American woman I am sure I would have felt the same, but that would not necessarily sway me to vote for her husband if I were undecided.

I think we all could !Let's get some quotes for group rates!

I joined OL on New Years Eve. That's all I'm saying.

What's with the Mexican beer? Will your insane campaign against Canada never end? Carol Mooseheadhead

The effectiveness was based so heavily on the equivocation though... The first casualty of political war is truth.

1 -social and fiscal conservatives, as reflected in the party platform 2 - I did not want to hear it. It is though,a point that could have been made in Romney's favour - but not to the Tampa audience. I could see it playing well with undecided voters. 3 - Mormon doctrine and practice 4 - it is a reasonable assumption, As you said she is not a public speaker, nor a writer that I know of. In these cases she would sit down with the speechwriters and work out what personal experiences and anecdotes she felt comfortable talking about, the writers would go from there, and she would have final approval on the text. 5 - I am sure she was willing and glad to be useful in any way that would support her husband

Of course some men turn into politicians after they are already married. "Behind every successful man there is a very surprised woman" -Maryon Pearson, wife of Canadian Prime Minister Leaster Pearson

Carol: The woman has MS and she is not a public speaker. She actually made an excellent speech. Her target audience was women and she nailed it. Adam Carol: The woman has MS and she is not a public speaker. She actually made an excellent speech. Her target audience was women and she nailed it. Adam The target was mainly the Republican base imo. She could not give concrete examples of her husband helping women other than herself through his political career--Romneycare helped Massachussetts women with breast cancer and MS, for example. And she could not mention that charitable giving and community service are mandatory in the Mormon church, as was his year of missionary work. She gave the speech well. Its writers did the best they could given the constraints they were under. It is always interesting to hear from political spouses, but I deplore that they have to be used in this way, although it goes with the job these days. I feel that Ann Romney would rather not have to talk about her personal health issues to millions of strangers. Don't marry a politician, girls and boys.

I'll pass. I already know more than I ever intended to learn.

I hope the speechwriting improves though,Conventions are supposed to be about speeches,and however appealing the orator, what they say ought to be said well.Poor Ann Romney's was so obviously written by a committee, and not a committee of speechwriters.

Economic depressions and wars are anomalies waiting to happen to any nation. How could an intelligent electorate have dealt with them?

Turtle Story for Chief Big Shot! - Manitou Witness Delegate

Causality 101 is way hard, Jeez! Some guy told me it was an easy A. Is it too late to switch to Womens Studies 113 "Feminist Overview and Analysis on Major Sports Leagues in the Last Two Weeks"?

Really? The American electorate voted FDR into office 4 times straight. That must tell you something. The American electorate voted Jimmy Carter into office once, which is still worse. Ba'al Chatzaf And FDR was more hated than Obama is. So far.

Mr X, why don't you tell us what you, uh, hold?

I'm not an Objectivist, but I think they would object if you did not pay for it first.

When a New Jersey guy says his Sicilian mother taught him to earn people's respect -- you gotta respect him!